Guest Column, Jem Bendell: Dolce&Gomorrah? The Ethical Challenge to Fashion
Dresses from the Oscars may have been auctioned for charity but accusations that a designer suit worn by Angelina Jolie at a previous awards was made by an illegally-employed tailor throws a spot-light on murky realities behind the glitz and glamour.
As the clouds of an economic downturn loomed, the world's top designer brands breathed a sigh of relief when agreement was reached over the writers' strike in time for the Oscars. Their red carpet is the planet's most famous fashion parade, the lion of all catwalks. This year Penelope Cruz wore Chanel Haute Couture, designed by Karl Lagerfeld, Cameron Diaz wore Dior, designed by John Galliano, while Oscar-winner Marion Cotillard wore Jean Paul Gaultier. Chopard and Bulgari provided their jewels.
Nothing has epitomized the adoring relationship between celebrities and high fashion like that between Hollywood and the Italian fashion house Dolce&Gabbana, with its label D&G. Over the years, movie stars Nicole Kidman and Angelina Jolie, as well as Julianne Moore, Tom Cruise, Will Smith and Colin Farrell have worn outfits designed by Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana. "Hollywood is a constant for us because without it we would lack a language that is instant and universal," the design duo from Milan explain. They often think of a movie and character when designing. For decades D&G has influenced fashion trends amongst Hollywood's elite.
But if you watched the Oscars this year you would likely have missed the Italian fashion brand. No actresses wore Dolce&Gabbana at the awards, according to photos on the definitive Oscars.com. It was left to Jason Bateman, Sean Combs, Casey Affleck, Josh Brolin, and Josh Lucas to sport tuxedos from the brand, and none made the People Magazine's list of 'Best Dressed Celebrities.' Dolce&Gabbana's website on the stars they style could only present the non-nominated and not-so-famous Jonnie Lee Miller for their Oscars category - and that was from a party, not the awards.
It appears the Italian fashion label has lost some of its appeal with female superstars. Might what D&G stands for as a brand be part of the reason? In recent years nearly all A-listers have adopted a social cause, from climate change to war-torn Darfur. Ethical is no longer just cool but necessary. This has implications for the leading fashion houses they promote, like D&G. One indication of what's to come was the auctioning of dresses worn by some of leading ladies. The dress worn by model Heidi Klum was auctioned for Red Heart Earth, a health promotion charity. However, recent accusations about the labor conditions involved in the manufacturer of the clothes themselves, and even connections to organized crime, poses an ethical challenge to fashion that charity wont hide.
Late last year the English translation of an Italian book was published. The author is currently under police protection, after "highly credible death threats". In Gomorrah: Italy's other Mafia, Roberto Saviano writes that "on TV Angelina Jolie was treading the red carpet at the Oscars, dressed in a gorgeous garment. One of those custom made outfits that designers fall over each other to offer the stars. An outfit that Pasquale had made in an underground factory in Arzano. All they had said was "this one's going to America." Saviano explains that 'Pasquale' was working illegally, and then for the Camorra, the lesser known yet more powerful branch of the Italian Mafia, based around Naples. The implication is that the white suit worn by Angelina Jolie on the red carpet at the Oscars some years ago was made by an illegally-employed tailor since employed by organized criminals accused of multiple murders. The author, or perhaps the litigation-shy publishers, decided not to mention that the gorgeous garment was from Dolce&Gabbana. However, the fact they did not mention the company makes this accusation not only less explosive, but also less plausible: if its a true story, come out and say it.
Saviano does provide more context, which suggests that problems with labor rights are widespread. He describes a widespread system of commercial dependence between Italy's fashion industry and organised crime around Naples, so extensive that it suggests many famous brands are involved. He details an auction process where multiple suppliers compete to try to meet an order, with the fashion brand only paying one of the suppliers who meets the quality, quantity and deadline first. As they are not paid until after delivery Saviano says most bidders are financed by the Camorra."The clans loan money to the factories in their territories. The Di Lauros in Arzano." He suggests that the high quality products made for the fashion labels that are excess to requirements then find their way into the counterfeit market, through the Camorra. He argues this system keeps prices paid to suppliers by the fashion brands as low as possible, so they do not challenge the counterfeiting directly.
In December an Italian TV documentary 'Slaves of Luxury', dug deeper into the supply chains of leading Italian fashion labels. The program detailed cases of illegal Chinese immigrant labor in Italy making accessories for D&G and other leading brands. "We asked to meet with Dolce & Gabbana also, considering that we found their trademark [in the factories with illegal labor], but their response was 'no comment'" explained RAI 3's Milena Gabanelli. Illegal labor is a situation "that as a whole is tolerated, perhaps to prevent these companies from going directly to China" she suggested.
That was the latest splattering of dirt on the D&G brand. A year ago the company was publicly criticized by Britain's advertising watchdog Advertising Standards Authority for a campaign showing models brandishing knives. Then, following complaints from consumers' groups Dolce&Gabbana pulled an advertisement in Madrid, Spain and Paris, France that showed a man holding a woman to the ground by her neck while a group of men look on. Spain's Labour and Social Affairs Ministry called the campaign illegal and humiliating to women. Italian publications followed suit, banning the ad.
The designers have always pushed the boundaries to reclaim sexual stereotypes and make them part of the post-feminists wardrobe. Revamping potent images previously deemed degrading to women-the geisha, baby doll, scantily clad seductress – has been a recurring theme, which is why Madonna was key to the brand's success throughout the 90s. Today the D&G style is for "open-minded people, curious, ironic; people who don't fear to run risks," they told Vogue.
Stefano Gabbana apologized for the rape-pose advert, insisting that D&G had never intended to offend anyone. "This is not true," says Professor David Allen of the Instituto de Empresa in Spain. "The company's segmentation strategy is based on offending some to capture a larger part of the "rebellious with money". By taking stabs at the sensibilities of those who are "behind the times", they send a strong message to their target segment: "you are different". Never mind that their target all wear the same clothes, drive the same cars, listen to the same music, experience the same ennui. These shared values define a coherent cohort." The suggestion is the brand managers would want D&G to be seen as Dolce&Gomorrah after all - so sweet and sinful.
This is the ethical challenge to fashion labels like D&G that are based on a concept of style that is about independence and freedom, not interdependence and connection, and a concept of quality that is limited to the end product not the whole production process. The success of a myriad of emerging fashion brands that embody a deeper sense of quality and style, such as Brazilian apparel Osklen and Danish label Noir, points to a shift in the aspirations of consumers as they wake up to the social and environmental challenges of our time. For such people escapism within an increasingly small world seems as futile as it does childish. Far better to enjoy wearing something that didn't unnecessarily harm anyone or thing in its production and trade. 'Me-me-me' is going out of fashion, displaced by a more 'you-me-we' sentiment.
As the charity sale of this year's Oscar dresses illustrates, some of the large luxury fashion brands are responding with more charity. D&G has organized some particularly glam philanthropy with its Hollywood stars, such as a picture book of celebrities sold for a children's' charity. The Art of Elysium has been a beneficiary of a number of events. It encourages working actors, artists and musicians to voluntarily dedicate their time and talent to children who are battling serious medical conditions. Giving in this way is positive, but does not address the key impacts a company like Dolce&Gabbana has on society, through its production processes and advertising messages. As the phalanx of corporate responsibility consultants will attest, a company's impacts arise from how it makes its money not how it gives it away.
The Italian book and TV revelations do not imply the company knew of the poor working practices of their suppliers, but that they did not care to know, and that even today they do not have a robust enough system to ensure good working practices. Even though the Italian language version of the book has sold over a million copies and the TV show was watched by over 4 million Italians, Dolce&Gabbana have neither directly challenged their content or taken libel action. Asked to rebutt the revelations, for this article, their communications team would only respond anonymously that the company is "particularly sensitive and fully aware of Corporate Social Responsibility issues" and that they have a code of conduct for their suppliers. As a privately held company they do not need to report to shareholders, who increasingly see social and environmental issues as financially relevant. Let us hope they are working hard to ensure their 700 million pounds of operations, including their suppliers, are more responsible, or at least more legal.
Given that Angelina Jolie is still being snapped by paparazzi wearing D&G branded accessories, the risk to her own reputation remains. Ms Jolie is probably the celebrity most engaged in and famous for humanitarian work since Princess Diana. Her work for refugees is commendable. Yet might her widest-ranging impact on society be through the practices of the companies whose products she promotes by her brand endorsements and fashion choices? Like most of us, she would not have known how her suit had been made. That is the challenge we still face with ethical sourcing. Unfortunately neither her agents or her lawyer would reply to correspondence about the recent revelations coming out of Italy. Silence can sometimes appear dignified. However, when a man's life is being threatened for exposing the suffering and organised crime behind an iconic brand that you have promoted, silence could appear indifferent, not dignified. Like most of us, she may be incredulous yet appalled at the labor practices that D&G stand accused of tolerating in the manufacture of their products by suppliers. Roberto Saviano notes that "no one would have believed that Angelina Jolie would go to the Academy Awards wearing an outfit made in Arzano, by Pasquale. The best and the worst." Unless we hear otherwise, what will we be left to believe in?
The potential of celebrities to champion more conscious consumption and, therefore, business activities, is being illustrated now by actor George Clooney, who recently challenged olympics-sponsors Omega to engage the Chinese authorities about their involvement in Darfur. He also applauds the work of Nespresso in ensuring the social and environmental quality of their coffee production. Actress Natalie Portman tells the fashion world she only wears vegan shoes, such as those by Stella McCartney. In February she launched her own line of vegan shoes with Te Casan. With initiative like that, one day the Oscars' red carpet might showcase not just Mafia-free clothing, but the very latest in sustainable fashion.
Dr Jem Bendell is an Associate Professor with Griffith Business School, and co-author of the WWF report Deeper Luxury, which proposed a 'Star Charter' for responsible brand endorsement.
Saviano does provide more context, which suggests that problems with labor rights are widespread. He describes a widespread system of commercial dependence between Italy's fashion industry and organised crime around Naples, so extensive that it suggests many famous brands are involved. He details an auction process where multiple suppliers compete to try to meet an order, with the fashion brand only paying one of the suppliers who meets the quality, quantity and deadline first. As they are not paid until after delivery Saviano says most bidders are financed by the Camorra."The clans loan money to the factories in their territories. The Di Lauros in Arzano." He suggests that the high quality products made for the fashion labels that are excess to requirements then find their way into the counterfeit market, through the Camorra. He argues this system keeps prices paid to suppliers by the fashion brands as low as possible, so they do not challenge the counterfeiting directly.
In December an Italian TV documentary 'Slaves of Luxury', dug deeper into the supply chains of leading Italian fashion labels. The program detailed cases of illegal Chinese immigrant labor in Italy making accessories for D&G and other leading brands. "We asked to meet with Dolce & Gabbana also, considering that we found their trademark [in the factories with illegal labor], but their response was 'no comment'" explained RAI 3's Milena Gabanelli. Illegal labor is a situation "that as a whole is tolerated, perhaps to prevent these companies from going directly to China" she suggested.
That was the latest splattering of dirt on the D&G brand. A year ago the company was publicly criticized by Britain's advertising watchdog Advertising Standards Authority for a campaign showing models brandishing knives. Then, following complaints from consumers' groups Dolce&Gabbana pulled an advertisement in Madrid, Spain and Paris, France that showed a man holding a woman to the ground by her neck while a group of men look on. Spain's Labour and Social Affairs Ministry called the campaign illegal and humiliating to women. Italian publications followed suit, banning the ad.
The designers have always pushed the boundaries to reclaim sexual stereotypes and make them part of the post-feminists wardrobe. Revamping potent images previously deemed degrading to women-the geisha, baby doll, scantily clad seductress – has been a recurring theme, which is why Madonna was key to the brand's success throughout the 90s. Today the D&G style is for "open-minded people, curious, ironic; people who don't fear to run risks," they told Vogue.
Stefano Gabbana apologized for the rape-pose advert, insisting that D&G had never intended to offend anyone. "This is not true," says Professor David Allen of the Instituto de Empresa in Spain. "The company's segmentation strategy is based on offending some to capture a larger part of the "rebellious with money". By taking stabs at the sensibilities of those who are "behind the times", they send a strong message to their target segment: "you are different". Never mind that their target all wear the same clothes, drive the same cars, listen to the same music, experience the same ennui. These shared values define a coherent cohort." The suggestion is the brand managers would want D&G to be seen as Dolce&Gomorrah after all - so sweet and sinful.
This is the ethical challenge to fashion labels like D&G that are based on a concept of style that is about independence and freedom, not interdependence and connection, and a concept of quality that is limited to the end product not the whole production process. The success of a myriad of emerging fashion brands that embody a deeper sense of quality and style, such as Brazilian apparel Osklen and Danish label Noir, points to a shift in the aspirations of consumers as they wake up to the social and environmental challenges of our time. For such people escapism within an increasingly small world seems as futile as it does childish. Far better to enjoy wearing something that didn't unnecessarily harm anyone or thing in its production and trade. 'Me-me-me' is going out of fashion, displaced by a more 'you-me-we' sentiment.
As the charity sale of this year's Oscar dresses illustrates, some of the large luxury fashion brands are responding with more charity. D&G has organized some particularly glam philanthropy with its Hollywood stars, such as a picture book of celebrities sold for a children's' charity. The Art of Elysium has been a beneficiary of a number of events. It encourages working actors, artists and musicians to voluntarily dedicate their time and talent to children who are battling serious medical conditions. Giving in this way is positive, but does not address the key impacts a company like Dolce&Gabbana has on society, through its production processes and advertising messages. As the phalanx of corporate responsibility consultants will attest, a company's impacts arise from how it makes its money not how it gives it away.
The Italian book and TV revelations do not imply the company knew of the poor working practices of their suppliers, but that they did not care to know, and that even today they do not have a robust enough system to ensure good working practices. Even though the Italian language version of the book has sold over a million copies and the TV show was watched by over 4 million Italians, Dolce&Gabbana have neither directly challenged their content or taken libel action. Asked to rebutt the revelations, for this article, their communications team would only respond anonymously that the company is "particularly sensitive and fully aware of Corporate Social Responsibility issues" and that they have a code of conduct for their suppliers. As a privately held company they do not need to report to shareholders, who increasingly see social and environmental issues as financially relevant. Let us hope they are working hard to ensure their 700 million pounds of operations, including their suppliers, are more responsible, or at least more legal.
Given that Angelina Jolie is still being snapped by paparazzi wearing D&G branded accessories, the risk to her own reputation remains. Ms Jolie is probably the celebrity most engaged in and famous for humanitarian work since Princess Diana. Her work for refugees is commendable. Yet might her widest-ranging impact on society be through the practices of the companies whose products she promotes by her brand endorsements and fashion choices? Like most of us, she would not have known how her suit had been made. That is the challenge we still face with ethical sourcing. Unfortunately neither her agents or her lawyer would reply to correspondence about the recent revelations coming out of Italy. Silence can sometimes appear dignified. However, when a man's life is being threatened for exposing the suffering and organised crime behind an iconic brand that you have promoted, silence could appear indifferent, not dignified. Like most of us, she may be incredulous yet appalled at the labor practices that D&G stand accused of tolerating in the manufacture of their products by suppliers. Roberto Saviano notes that "no one would have believed that Angelina Jolie would go to the Academy Awards wearing an outfit made in Arzano, by Pasquale. The best and the worst." Unless we hear otherwise, what will we be left to believe in?
The potential of celebrities to champion more conscious consumption and, therefore, business activities, is being illustrated now by actor George Clooney, who recently challenged olympics-sponsors Omega to engage the Chinese authorities about their involvement in Darfur. He also applauds the work of Nespresso in ensuring the social and environmental quality of their coffee production. Actress Natalie Portman tells the fashion world she only wears vegan shoes, such as those by Stella McCartney. In February she launched her own line of vegan shoes with Te Casan. With initiative like that, one day the Oscars' red carpet might showcase not just Mafia-free clothing, but the very latest in sustainable fashion.
Dr Jem Bendell is an Associate Professor with Griffith Business School, and co-author of the WWF report Deeper Luxury, which proposed a 'Star Charter' for responsible brand endorsement.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Victor T Jul 18th 2008 9:46PM
Dirty dirty Italians. Only difference between Made in Italy and Made in China is that the Italians know how to hide the sweatshop labor from the media...
emma p. Jul 19th 2008 1:56AM
Absolutely, VictorT.
What I find interesting about this situation is the fashion industries complaints re: counterfeiting (i.e. the lawsuits vs ebay, et al). If the industry is using illegal means to produce their products, why can't anyone else? What's the difference between the Mafia & al Qaida (1 of the groups known to profit from counterfeiting)? Don't they use the same tactics?