these four essential characteristics of luxury, a new dimension, which has become unavoidable, has recently been added: sustainability, leading to the concept of “sustainable luxury”. Luxury consumers have now broadened their expectations of quality to include environmental and social attributes. Through this choice, they can display a positive image, of being responsible people, and thereby compensate for the negative values often associated with luxury, namely ego, superfluity, irrationality and excess (Cervellon 2013; Janssen et al. 2014).
Surprisingly, even if studies have recently attempted to explore the possible links between the two notions of luxury and sustainable development, to our knowledge, there is not yet a consensual definition of the concept of “sustainable luxury”. In this chapter, we propose to define it as: “a product or service resulting from a production process that makes it possible to obtain an irreproachable quality in the respect of human and animal welfare, and whose lifecycle generates reduced impacts on the environment”. The luxury industry has never been as scrutinized in terms of the environmental and social consequences of its practices as it is today. The number of articles in the press implicating luxury businesses in scandals have noticeably increased. For example, Gucci has been targeted for the inhumane working conditions in its retail outlets in China, and Burberry for the deliberate destruction of its unsold inventory in order to preserve the rarity of its products.
In the face of these criticisms, the integration of sustainable development principles in the luxury industry has become unavoidable. In this regard, two strategic trends have been observed. A few rare companies have decided to make this new challenge central to their business model. The Stella McCartney brand is an interesting example of this; it has, for instance, banned all animal raw materials from its workshops. Other companies have chosen to limit the inclusion of sustainability to certain stages of their value chains. Table 2.1 provides some examples of responsible initiatives taken by luxury brands in recent years.
Table 2.1. Examples of responsible initiatives in luxury industry
| Nature of engagement | Examples of brands | Examples of actions taken |
| Hermès | Petit H: recycling leather and silk offcuts to produce small accessories | |
| Use of responsible mate rials | Gucci | “Green” shoe soles |
| Saint Laurent | New Vintage: products made by recovering unused fabrics from previous collections | |
| Hôtel Fouquet’s Barrière | Obtaining ISO 9001 (quality), ISO 14001 (environment) and SA 8000 (social) certifications | |
| Labeling | Le Grand Hôtel Cannes | Green Globe Label |
| Creation of associations | Cartier | Founder member of the Responsible Jewellery Council |
2.2.2. Luxury companies and the challenge of sustainability
The various responsible initiatives taken by luxury brands have been the subject of communications, whether in detailed corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports or on their own websites. This new trend for transparency, contrary to the policy of secrecy that has always characterized the luxury sector, is intended to respond to the different pressures coming from consumers and other stakeholders. However, they expose luxury companies to two major risks. The first is being accused of greenwashing. The green market is indeed characterized by the multiplication of companies’ opportunistic behaviors that have contributed to the increase of consumer skepticism towards environmental information. In the luxury sector, Kering has recently been accused of greenwashing; the group, which considers sustainable development one of its strategic priority areas, has received criticism for its treatment of animals, especially rabbits, whose skins are destined to be used in the production of the brand’s coats. This situation refers to the concept of “hypocrisy” mentioned by DeTienne and Lee (2005). The dissemination of ecological information is, in fact, not enough to build a responsible image because companies may act inconsistently in regard to their promises of environmental and social engagement. A perception of hypocrisy has a negative impact on consumer beliefs about a company’s responsible commitment (Wagner et al. 2009). When the brand is perceived as “showing off”, owing to the misuse of the environmental argument, consumers doubt the legitimacy and authenticity of its claims (Cervellon and Shammas 2013). Luxury companies must thus be convincing in the credibility1 of their commitment to sustainable development and in the sincerity of their communications on this issue.
The second risk to which luxury companies are exposed is when their engagement relates to a negative perception of their new responsible offer. Environmental actions, such as recycling or even social initiatives, such as the replacement of animal raw materials with alternative ones (synthetic or of vegetable origin), can in fact have a negative impact on the perceived quality of luxury products.
2.2.2.1. Environmental practices that could damage the perceived quality of luxury products
Luxury brands such as LVMH and Estée Lauder have implemented actions to optimize water and energy consumption by encouraging the use of renewable resources. Others have adopted recycling, such as Yves Saint Laurent (now Saint Laurent) which, in June 2009, launched its New Vintage collection, created with unused fabric from previous seasons, and Hermès, which in its Petit H workshops produced small accessories made from offcuts of leather or fabrics, and even 16e Sud, which makes bags from recycled leather.
Some brands are convinced of the positive impact of environmentally-friendly practices on the perceived quality of their products. Kering, for example, considers sustainability to be an extension of quality; the natural dimension that characterizes environmentally-friendly materials can strengthen the superior quality of luxury products. In reality, the final outcome depends on the judgment of consumers, who can be skeptical of the inclusion of sustainable materials in luxury products (Achabou and Dekhili 2013). Luxury companies should demonstrate caution in the selection of new sustainable raw materials and plenty of creativity in how they are used.
As an example, Gucci’s communication (via its website) on its environmentally-friendly shoes emphasizes a production process that brings together creativity and responsibility, with the ongoing concern of responding to consumer expectations in terms of quality, unique design and so on:
Gucci is delighted to announce the launch of environmentally friendly soles made from bioplastics (biodegradable materials) [...] This new project is emblematic of the aim of the House, which is to interpret the desires of the modern consumer in a responsible way though sustainable items, while maintaining the balance between the timeless values of style and superior quality and an expanding ecological vision.
2.2.2.2. A social concern harmful to the perceived quality of luxury products
One of the issues that has been at the heart of debates on the luxury industry for a number of years is animal welfare. In addition to various NGOs that campaign for animal rights (PETA, L214, etc.), we have seen the emergence of a consumer movement (veganism)
