The first source of dissonance is related to the two concepts themselves, which have opposing dimensions. The first contradiction relates to exclusivity (versus sharing). If the concept of sustainable development refers to practices encouraging donations, exchanges, second-hand sales and recycling, luxury, for its part, instead evokes exclusivity, which implies the scarcity of a product:
But this [sustainable practices] slightly harms the image of luxury products that we make, I like to think that if I buy a luxury textile product that I’m the first to have it, that it’s made of high-quality materials, never touched before. I think that the sustainable aspect would put me off a little bit.
Owing to their strong emotional dimension, luxury products are little suited to the logic of donating and sharing. Consumers show an emotional attachment to the luxury products they buy (Carrigan et al. 2013). They associate them with cherished memories and a strong symbolism that leads them to reject the idea of having to be separated from them, even when the products reach the end of their lifespan: “if it’s a question of fabric from a piece that has a history, that belonged to a star in a famous film, you might as well keep it to maintain specific symbols for a family, or an era”, “I’m not sure that a woman would want to be separated from her handbag even if she doesn’t use it anymore!”
The two concepts – luxury and sustainable development – are then opposed in terms of the dimension of self-interest (versus altruism). Sustainable development refers back to “others”, such as the well-being of future generations, the protection of animal species and the working conditions of employees. However, luxury evokes more selfish considerations: “We talk a lot about the environment but no one pays attention, everyone just wants to enjoy themselves. I buy a product, I see whether I like it but I don’t think about the consequences, I think about what I want”, “especially when I want to enjoy myself, I don’t think about pollution”.
Another point of opposition between the two concepts relates to the dimension of impulsivity (versus rationality). When we talk about “sustainable development”, we often think about thoughtful behavior that takes into account the environmental and social impact of the strategic choices and practices implemented. Luxury, perceived as being part of a care-free world, is far from rational in this regard: “Luxury: we often think of recklessness, it’s true that recklessness goes well with luxury... and sustainable development is really awareness of the object and of life and of the end of the product’s lifespan. There is maybe, ultimately, a difference between these two concepts.” In this regard, luxury is synonymous with dreams, while environmental issues recall reality, which is not always positive.
Moreover, quality is an integral part of the definition of luxury: “For me, luxury products are a guarantee of quality. They are products that are unquestionably expensive but that, for me, symbolize a form of quality.” This can be jeopardized by the inclusion of sustainable attributes. It is, in particular, the use of recyclable materials that has been subject to criticism and associated with a reduction in perceived quality:
Recycling and luxury, that doesn’t work, I’m not sure that that works... it’s not in the spirit of haute couture, it doesn’t go with luxury; the use of recycled products to make new luxury products should be avoided. That is, at a given time, they could be recycled to make other less high-end products but recycled materials shouldn’t be used to make luxury products; I think that, rightly, luxury cork... some cottons, very high-quality materials, you don’t get anything from recycling them.
The two concepts also seem to diverge from an environmental point of view. Sustainable development means the preservation of the planet and natural resources. Luxury, meanwhile, is associated with the idea of wasting resources. Indeed, the ostentatious dimension of luxury leads to a misuse of the considerable packaging: “I would say that the packaging of some products can be a bit excessive... in order to draw the eye, there is sometimes a bit much for a small item. We could maybe make reductions at this level to protect the environment.” The problem of waste intensifies when rare raw materials are used (for example, leather products from exotic animals). Moreover, the specificity of luxury product categories often leads to the use of chemical ingredients that are harmful to the planet: “I imagine that when we tan hides or make fabric dyes... it can only have a negative impact. So yes, in textiles, leather goods, since there are material treatment processes that use chemicals... and we’re aware that this is never very good for the environment.”
Finally, at the social level, different aspects push apart the two concepts – luxury and sustainable development. Firstly, in terms of social equality, sustainable development promotes justice-related values, while luxury refers to the idea of inequalities within society. One characteristic of luxury relates to separating rich individuals from those with limited income, and dismissing people whose image is considered far from the ideal:
There is the counterfeits issue because we see people who don’t have the money and who have a luxury product, but in fact it’s a fake because it gives off an image of them... so it’s true that, for me, I think the biggest problem with luxury is that, it’s social problems, because it’s only for a specific group of people... that annoys me a bit.
Secondly, the idea of working conditions strengthens the contradiction between luxury and sustainable development. The latter advocates protecting workers and safeguarding their well-being. However, luxury often conjures negative perceptions of working conditions. The place accorded to workers in this sector remains secondary in comparison to the luxury product that garners all the attention: “The workshops that use all these small hands who make delicate things. Here’s the whole chain of artisans, workers who participate in the production of the product and who are forgotten in favor of the showy aspects of the object.” Moreover, workers’ rights, including the case of workforces in developing countries, may be tarnished: “You know that for diamond exploration, they [luxury actors] are really exploitative.” Lastly, the issue of animal welfare has provoked varied reactions from consumers; this is one of the aspects that creates a gap between the two concepts. While sustainable development “promotes the protection of animal species”, the luxury sector exploits and mistreats these species to the benefit of the products created and the satisfaction of demanding customers: “A luxury product is going to be a rare product, so it’s going to affect protected species. Their consumptions are going to have an impact! The use of fur, I don’t know, it’s kind of the first thing that comes to mind for me... because, really, it’s something that affects animals that are in danger of extinction.”
2.3.2. What solutions are there for better integrating sustainable development into luxury?
Sustainable development can be an opportunity for increasing economic prosperity and this is the challenge that luxury brands are now facing. In order to achieve this, they have several levers that can allow them, first of all, to overcome the perceived contradiction between the values they spread and those promoted by sustainable development, and then to provide an example of responsible engagement. In the following section, we will propose some potential avenues for reflection on better integrating the challenge of sustainable development into luxury.
2.3.2.1. Building the image of luxury as a vector for sharing and of preserving resources
Overcoming
