New York: Has anyone else noticed that Kering, the Paris-based luxury group that owns Gucci, Bottega Veneta, Yves Saint Laurent and Stella McCartney (among other brands), is suddenly everywhere?
It is in Cannes, organising symposia and dinners as part of its Women in Motion initiative to address the question of women in film and, more broadly, women’s rights (also, to be a sponsor of the festival and get its dresses on the red carpet).
It is in New York City, filing a lawsuit in federal court against Chinese online giant Alibaba over reported sales of counterfeit goods. And it is in Paris, releasing a comprehensive ‘Environmental Profit and Loss’ statement, the first luxury group to try to be largely transparent about its effect on the planet.
In other words, in one week, it has come out loudly in favour of women’s rights, intellectual property protection and sustainability, a public display of issue-related activism that pretty much trumps anything I can remember in the sector.
Indeed, it’s somewhat uncharacteristic behaviour for a luxury group, as they tend to play it safe on causes, lest they offend any potential consumer segment. And one school of thought says it’s better to let the products speak for themselves.
However, a group spokeswoman said, Kering believes that being an industry leader means, in part, using your position to steer the debate around certain issues you believe are important.
There have been hints that Kering was more willing to ally itself with a political cause than have many of its peers.
In 2014, Francois-Henri Pinault, the group’s chief executive, came out in favour of the Dorchester hotel boycott, prompted by new laws in Brunei (the Dorchester group owned by the sultan of Brunei). And the group has worked on women’s and ecological issues. But its commitment has never before been quite so clear.
A more typical strategy would include the Cannes support and the creation of an award, which Kering and Gucci have done, but without the airing of complicated questions about female representation, or lack thereof, in cinema.
Kering is also open-sourcing its environmental profit-and-loss methodology and being frank about where it falls short.
In brief: The group’s overall environmental impact in 2013 is estimated to be €773 million (Dh3.1 billion, $858 million). That is the cost in ‘natural capital’ (the eco-equivalent of human capital or, according to the report, ‘the stock of natural ecosystems on Earth including air, land, soil, biodiversity and geological resources’), as measured in myriad ways along every part of the supply chain by the group in conjunction with independent partner PricewaterhouseCoopers.
That sounds scary, and there’s nothing to compare it with because no other group has produced such an assessment. But, according to the paper, the partner also estimated the typical impact of a group like Kering but without some of the environmental measures Kering already has in place and came up with a number that was 40 per cent higher. Read the report and judge for yourself.
Of course, as far as that environmental profit and loss goes, it’s not perfect: The environmental effects are not broken out by brand, just as revenue is not broken out by brand in the group’s annual financial statements. A Kering spokeswoman said the group had specific brand information but it was not as meaningful as the overall methodology and conclusions.
Still, I’d be interested to see, for example, the impact of Gucci, with its high volume of leather goods, as opposed to, say, that of the more apparel-centric Alexander McQueen. And, because Kering is a public company, it comes with a pretty whopping disclaimer at the end, which states in part: “Because of its nature, the EP and L cannot achieve the accuracy of financial results nor can it be subjected to financial audits.”
But I give Kering full marks for putting it out there anyway, knowing that some people (mea culpa) may fault the group for what the report doesn’t say.
Of course, if you read the annual reports of most of its peers, including LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton and Richemont, there are now giant sections devoted to corporate social responsibility and sustainability. Kering isn’t the only group paying attention to these areas, but it is, as of now, by far the most vocal.
Indeed, the group wouldn’t put it this way, but making the environmental profit and loss public is almost a dare: We did it, now there’s no excuse for you not to do it, too.
I wonder if the Kering efforts are about to usher in a new era of luxury activism. It may seem weird — bling on the barricades! — but why not?
