Gucci Announces It's Going Fur-Free

[rubydon]

Gucci is the latest fashion brand to go fur-free. During a talk at the London College of Fashion on Wednesday, Gucci President and CEO Marco Bizzarri announced that as of its Spring 2018 collection, the company will “no longer use, promote or publicize animal fur.”

The brand also announced that it would be joining the Fur Free Alliance, an organization which “focuses on the deprivation and cruelty suffered by fur bearing animals both in wild trapping and industrial fur farming.” In addition to refraining from any future fur use, Gucci will be organizing a charity auction to sell off its remaining animal fur items, with proceeds going to LAV, an Italian animal rights group, and the Humane Society of the United States.

This is a significant departure for the company, which has previously incorporated animal fur into many of its designs, including kangaroo fur-lined loafers. As Vogue points out though, the move is not entirely unexpected, given that Kering, Gucci’s parent company, has been working towards increased sustainability for some time now. With its pledge, Gucci joins brands like Giorgio Armani, Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein, and Madewell which have also decided to go forgo the use of fur.

thecut

 

[dodencebt]

Given that Gucci is (ugh) one of the market leaders right now, this is a pretty bold move. I like how fur looks and feels but I agree that it is completely unnecessary in this time and age, so it's good to see major brands ditching it.

However, fur is often used in Gucci collections so are they planning to remove it altogether from future designs or use fake fur instead of real?

 

[Melancholybaby]

^I had the same question as well. I assume they're going to use fake fur. Given how popular their fur slippers are, I can't imagine them discontinuing them any time soon.

 

[rubydon]

The fur slippers are pretty hot sellers, as you've said. I'm guessing they'll replace real fur with fake fur, but we'll see.

 

[Lola701]

I guess it's a good thing but i don't get how we could put sustainable and fake fur in the same sentence. It's known that fake fur is bad for environment and if they are going to replace fur with fake fur, then the whole message is blurred.

I have that Max Mara teddy bear coat that has a kind of fake-fur look. Maybe brands should developp more into something like that.
It will be interesting to see how they will work on that.

 

[CATO]

Thank you so much in the name of the animals for ending that cruelty to that creatures. BIG CARMA FOR YOU..We need more followers. <3 <3 <3 <3

 

[MulletProof]

Awesome to see them move forward and leaving the old centuries behind . There's just no excuse. The production of sustainable clothes isn't flawless but you have to let go of archaic and barbaric practices in order to completely focus on how to improve and refine the new ways technology (product of a developed brain, not cavemen logic) has brought for us.

 

[fashionista-ta]

I guess it's a good thing but i don't get how we could put sustainable and fake fur in the same sentence. It's known that fake fur is bad for environment and if they are going to replace fur with fake fur, then the whole message is blurred.

I have that Max Mara teddy bear coat that has a kind of fake-fur look. Maybe brands should developp more into something like that.
It will be interesting to see how they will work on that.

Presumably they could make it from recycled polyester fibers, a la Synchilla fleece ... which has 80% recycled content.

Good for Gucci.

 

[dior_couture1245]

Faux fur never ages well.

 

[AD011620]

Well done!!!

 

[fashionista-ta]

Faux fur never ages well.

I have a Patagonia coat that is surprisingly nice looking (I bought it for the wind-stop lining for walking in the winter, but it looks so good I'll wear it out to a nice dinner too), and it looks brand new after several years. It needed a repair, and they took care of it for $5, including return shipping. A great company ...

It's polyester, not recycled unfortunately, but I expect it to have a long life span.

Real fur is considerably higher maintenance, and also has a shelf life ... not sure exactly what the max is given proper maintenance.

 

[badgalcrush]

http://footwearnews.com/2017/fashion/news/gucci-fur-free-shoes-443716/

 

[rubydon]

http://footwearnews.com/2017/fashion/news/gucci-fur-free-shoes-443716/

Interesting stuff. Thanks for the link.

 

[TaylorBinque]

I think with Stella McCartney using more innovation in fabric and recycled material as well as faux-fur with less environmental impact, Kering has great resource to do it and this is great to hear.

 

[dsamg]

Faux fur never ages well.

Well you need not worry about your coat ageing well if we continue to destroy our ecosystem..

 

[YohjiAddict]

The luxurious feel that Gucci had was the only thing I appreciated from them, now it's gonna be tacky clothes in tackier fabrics. Might as well just ditch fur altoghether since fake fur is just no good.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ Nowadays, kidz associate logos and monograms with luxury… so as long as a Gucci basic sweatshirt or tee comes with 200 logos and is covered in monograms, that apparently means “luxury”.

What are the chances that once Alessandro falls out of flavor for with his thriftstore gimmick— and he inevitably will since kidz move on faster to new labels that 65yo billionaires move on from hitting on 21yo models, Kering will just follow whatever flavor-of-the-moment is, even that if may be a swing back to the ol’ luxurious real fur…???

I’m not a carnivore so no red meat nor poultry, but I do wear leather so I’m in no position to feel sanctimonious to those that gulp down meat like it’s air. But the slaughter industry does way more harm to the environment than the fur industry ever could: Everyone that’s so opposed to the fur industry for the supposed environmental harm really should also stop consuming/ supporting the slaughter industry for that same principle.

And a warm-blooded living being is a living being, and skin is skin. Why is it alright to wear Gucci calfskin leather loafers-- but if it's lined in fur, it all of a sudden is barbaric...???

 

[rubydon]

I'm vegan and choose not to wear leather. But I understand that right now, those choices wouldn't be acceptable for most people on the planet, and I respect everyone's right to make their own decisions as to what they eat or wear.

You're right about fur being not much different from leather. However, I think the value of a decision like this is symbolic. Slowly but surely we're moving away from a paradigm that equates animal suffering with luxury. The rejection of fur is just the first step, and I think that in 20 or 50 or 70 years, the changes made in our relationship with animals will be a lot more sweeping.

 

[fashionista-ta]

As someone who eats meat and wears leather, the difference for me with fur is that, for the vast majority of us, it's just not necessary. Where I live, it's a status symbol pure and simple, there's nothing necessary about it. I also think the substitutes for fur (including cloth, polar fleece, etc.) are far better than the substitutes for leather. Pleather is pretty bad in my experience. Maybe we just haven't put enough energy into alternatives. When you think of a beautifully aged leather chair vs. cracked Naugahyde though, it's a little hard to imagine something manmade can match its quality and beauty.

 

[Lola701]

They are going fur-free but they are still doing exotic leather pieces. If we want to go on the "fur is not necessary" thing, then alligator and python neither.

The fur business has really changed to be honest. There is still a demand for fur but all across the brands, i've seen that are selling more and more shearling, goat and lamb fur compared to fox , chinchilla and everything.