LVMH - The Luxury Goods Conglomerate

[NYLA22]

About the succession, and the reason BA raised his age cap at 85 y.o.; he wants to wait and see if his two youngest, J or F, can compete with D - both Antoine and Alexandre are out of the equation.
And he does not want to give in to D, cause he still does not trust her husband (who he disapproved of and nicknamed "p*rno boy" for years), but he has just recently starting to warming up to him. He is still worried about the influence the son-in-law can have on his daughter, or the group.
In the meantime, he has doubled his daily meditations and yoga sessions.

All their entourage is talking way too much but only about money and politics and never about fashion...

Did Alexandre take himself out of the running based on his time at Tiffany? Personal taste aside, it seems that he really turned that brand into an LVMH -kind of enterprise (the insane NYC store redesign, the Beyonce/Jay-Z and Supreme collabs, etc).

 

[yslforever]

Did Alexandre take himself out of the running based on his time at Tiffany? Personal taste aside, it seems that he really turned that brand into an LVMH -kind of enterprise (the insane NYC store redesign, the Beyonce/Jay-Z and Supreme collabs, etc).

Yes, because of Tiffany.

 

[Lola701]

About the succession, and the reason BA raised his age cap at 85 y.o.; he wants to wait and see if his two youngest, J or F, can compete with D - both Antoine and Alexandre are out of the equation.
And he does not want to give in to D, cause he still does not trust her husband (who he disapproved of and nicknamed "p*rno boy" for years), but he has just recently starting to warming up to him. He is still worried about the influence the son-in-law can have on his daughter, or the group.
In the meantime, he has doubled his daily meditations and yoga sessions.

All their entourage is talking way too much but only about money and politics and never about fashion...

I would be scared if Xavier Niel was my son in law but at the same time, they can create some kind of « garde-fous » with her brothers no? Tbh, I kind of warmed up to Niel when he became a part owner of Le Monde with Bergé and the other one.

I love your last paragraph. As if they ever cared about it. Delphine is truly probably the only one who cares about the subject, from a creative POV.

Loving the tea on this Xavier Niel guy, I had no clue really!
Maybe they should start discussing about Givenchy being a non event for almost a decade and trying to spice the brand up...it's the brand with the greatest potential that's been underperforming for several years

As long as Givenchy is profitable, it’s not really an issue in reality.
I think most if if not all the brands at LVMH are profitable so it’s not a panic on board situation. And the ones that are underperforming are not really the ones where they are pouring money at either lol.

 

[yslforever]

I would be scared if Xavier Niel was my son in law but at the same time, they can create some kind of « garde-fous » with her brothers no? Tbh, I kind of warmed up to Niel when he became a part owner of Le Monde with Bergé and the other one.

I love your last paragraph. As if they ever cared about it. Delphine is truly probably the only one who cares about the subject, from a creative POV.

As long as Givenchy is profitable, it’s not really an issue in reality.
I think most if if not all the brands at LVMH are profitable so it’s not a panic on board situation. And the ones that are underperforming are not really the ones where they are pouring money at either lol.

Le Monde is indeed his way to gain a varnish of social respectability (and political influence).

 

[Lola701]

Le Monde is indeed his way to gain a varnish of social respectability (and political influence).

Better than « Minitel rose » à coups sur!
I wonder though, how much of his statements regarding taxes and the contribution of the ultra wealthy to the economy of the country (sometimes verging on cronyism) is received by BA.
Arnault is very much alert when it comes to not receive unfavorable criticism but he doesn’t mind being controversial whereas Niel has cultivated that sympathetic persona over the years somewhere between a « french Steve Jobs » and « Michel-Édouard Leclerc ».

 

[GRCF]

I would be scared if Xavier Niel was my son in law but at the same time, they can create some kind of « garde-fous » with her brothers no? Tbh, I kind of warmed up to Niel when he became a part owner of Le Monde with Bergé and the other one.

I think BA has created guard rails around this when he asked shareholders to vote for only allowing the selling/passing of shares by the kids onto their direct descendants. I'm sure this doesn't stop Xavier from acquiring shares in LVMH by simply purchasing shares. There were other measures, but I don't remember specifics, all with the intention to ensure only Arnaults remained majority share holders of LVMH.

Delphine's ex-husband became a shareholder after they were married, attended the shareholder meetings, etc. BA probably didn't want to make the same mistake twice, but the measures were made way after Delphine's daughter with Xavier was born. Bernard hated his guts from the beginning, so I wonder what took him so long. Some say it was brought on by Antoine's marriage to Natalia, is probably all of the above.

There was a rumor of a rift between Xavier and BA's wife reported in Challenges sometime last year. But, I doubt Delphine will take sides in any event, I'm sure she'll put the company first. Or her brothers will intervene to not hand anything over to Xavier. I'm sure they love their sister, but the family business/legacy is more important to them.

Delphine is truly probably the only one who cares about the subject, from a creative POV.

Likely only from a creative POV, tbh. As much as I stan, I think it's hard to care about politics when they will rarely affect you, unless they are being taxed. I think Niel just tries to appeal to the working/middle class. I'm more cynical about, I think he is trying to seek some kind of political office in the future. Which is odd considering how private Delphine is, but I don't doubt it. He has a brilliant PR machine, plus he owns multiple media outlets and so do his in-laws. I still can't stand him, there is something about him I don't trust. Not that he's a billionaire, because BA is, but BA does not hide his terrible personality and arrogance.

Niel has cultivated that sympathetic persona over the years somewhere between a « french Steve Jobs » and « Michel-Édouard Leclerc ».

I'm sorry but he needs to stop being compared to Steve Jobs. Not even close. He might be France's make-a-wish Steve Jobs at best. And I'm not a Steve Jobs, fan girly, they are just not on the same level. But he has used his PR to cultivate his down-to-earth, "I'm poor and a stupid loser like you", persona. Which might be why I dislike him, with BA you know what you are getting, he's not likeable and he knows it. When people try jump through hoops to be likeable, that's when I side-eye them.

 

[yslforever]

I think BA has created guard rails around this when he asked shareholders to vote for only allowing the selling/passing of shares by the kids onto their direct descendants. I'm sure this doesn't stop Xavier from acquiring shares in LVMH by simply purchasing shares. There were other measures, but I don't remember specifics, all with the intention to ensure only Arnaults remained majority share holders of LVMH.

Delphine's ex-husband became a shareholder after they were married, attended the shareholder meetings, etc. BA probably didn't want to make the same mistake twice, but the measures were made way after Delphine's daughter with Xavier was born. Bernard hated his guts from the beginning, so I wonder what took him so long. Some say it was brought on by Antoine's marriage to Natalia, is probably all of the above.

There was a rumor of a rift between Xavier and BA's wife reported in Challenges sometime last year. But, I doubt Delphine will take sides in any event, I'm sure she'll put the company first. Or her brothers will intervene to not hand anything over to Xavier. I'm sure they love their sister, but the family business/legacy is more important to them.

Likely only from a creative POV, tbh. As much as I stan, I think it's hard to care about politics when they will rarely affect you, unless they are being taxed. I think Niel just tries to appeal to the working/middle class. I'm more cynical about, I think he is trying to seek some kind of political office in the future. Which is odd considering how private Delphine is, but I don't doubt it. He has a brilliant PR machine, plus he owns multiple media outlets and so do his in-laws. I still can't stand him, there is something about him I don't trust. Not that he's a billionaire, because BA is, but BA does not hide his terrible personality and arrogance.

I'm sorry but he needs to stop being compared to Steve Jobs. Not even close. He might be France's make-a-wish Steve Jobs at best. And I'm not a Steve Jobs, fan girly, they are just not on the same level. But he has used his PR to cultivate his down-to-earth, "I'm poor and a stupid loser like you", persona. Which might be why I dislike him, with BA you know what you are getting, he's not likeable and he knows it. When people try jump through hoops to be likeable, that's when I side-eye them.

He is still giving sleazy vibes... (hence the SF Armory purchase).

 

[yslforever]

hum, there is gone Loro Piana's (and the "Made in Italy"'s ) credibility.

https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/lvmhs-loro-piana-put-under-court-administration-italy-over-labour-exploitation-2025-07-14/

If they are doing it with LP, which is supposed to be the epitome of craftmanship and heritage on their brands portfolio, I dread what their other lesser brands are actually doing.

 

[GRCF]

hum, there is gone Loro Piana's (and the "Made in Italy"'s ) credibility.

https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/lvmhs-loro-piana-put-under-court-administration-italy-over-labour-exploitation-2025-07-14/

If they are doing it with LP, which is supposed to be the epitome of craftmanship and heritage on their brands portfolio, I dread what their other lesser brands are actually doing.

Part of me is like "wow LVMH keeps getting called to task in Italy" and then I remember the whole case against Dior for same or similar allegations went away with a €2M check. This will too.

I wonder if Bernard will now move Frederic again to another spot considering he hates for his boys to be in the hot seat, though this was happening under Damien as CEO and Antoine as Chairman.

Serious question: When things like this happens in fashion houses like Dior and LP, are CEOs often insulated from that decision and we can say they did not know? I would like to lean towards giving decision-makers the benefit of the doubt, but I'm also currently reading Careless People. Though I think tech workers (not leadership) might be more idealistic, therefore slightly more inclined to "speak up", than people in fashion are.

 

[Yasouss]

really sort of taints the image of the brand given how they harp on and on about heritage and craftsmanship. They have been expanding for some time now and opening many stores, I wonder if this is a cause of that. Cucinelli would be happy about this news.

 

[PDFSD]

are we forgetting the farmers in 2024 Peru x Loro piana living in poverty for 8k vicuna wool.

Bloomberg

Indigenous Farmers Work Free of Charge for the World’s Richest Person​

March 14, 2024

Andrea Barrientos, a 75-year-old subsistence farmer, spends most of her days tending to a flock of sheep. Once a year she herds vicuñas as a service to her community.Photographer: Angela Ponce for Bloomberg Businessweek

Read the story​

Loro Piana sells a vicuña sweater for about $9,000. The fashion house — a unit of LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE, the luxury conglomerate controlled by billionaire Bernard Arnault — has been sourcing wool for the garments from the Peruvian Andes for decades. But the Indigenous villagers who help herd and shear the golden-brown, big-eyed animals have almost nothing to show for it.

Watch the documentary​

As the top global buyer of vicuña fiber, Loro Piana’s secretive supply chain highlights the use of cheap labor to make some of the most expensive clothing in the world.

Watch Inside Peru’s Secret Luxury Supply Chain.

Listen to the podcast​

In this episode, Marcelo Rochabrun unspools what harvesting wool for a touchstone brand in the so-called quiet luxury trend means for historically impoverished communities in Peru.

 

[HigthaVandah]

are CEOs often insulated from that decision and we can say they did not know? I would like to lean towards giving decision-makers the benefit of the doubt

Constructive knowledge

 

[PDFSD]

Ceo´s know when they are cutting corner for cost it's often open secret, thats why the subcontractors game is in place for plausible deniability.

Plausible deniability refers to the ability of someone, often in a position of power, to deny knowledge or responsibility for an action, even if they were involved, by maintaining a lack of concrete evidence linking them to it. It's essentially a way to avoid blame by creating a situation where a denial of involvement seems believable, even if it's not necessarily tru

 

[PDFSD]

Luxury bof.com

Opinion: The Big Luxury Simulation Is Over​

Consumers appear to be calling time on an industry that long ago stopped selling real luxury goods, writes Eugene Rabkin.

The 19-story façade of a Louis Vuitton store in New York. (Getty Images)

By
Eugene Rabkin
18 July 2025

In “Simulacra and Simulation” (1981), the late French philosopher Jean Baudrillard posited that we no longer live in a directly experienced reality, but in a “hyperreality”: a world so heavily mediated by images that they are more powerful in shaping the way we live our daily lives than the real world.

Four decades later, anyone on Instagram understands this intuitively. Our decisions — from what we buy to who we befriend — are shaped by imagery.

In the luxury industry, an object’s symbolic value was always more important than its material value. But the age of the hyperreal pushed this logic to an extreme.

Whereas luxury once meant beautifully crafted objects, it became about storytelling. Instead of luxury goods, brands retooled to deliver luxury narratives. And as long as their products signalled luxury, they realised they could cut corners on quality to boost margins and meet growing demand without alienating shoppers.


This strategy has proved stunningly successful, especially with people who grew up in a world of simulacra, conditioned to consume markers of goods more than the goods themselves. As Dana Thomas noted in “Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster” (2007), “Consumers don’t buy luxury branded items for what they are, but for what they represent.” On social media as in the street, what mattered were symbols of luxury.

But fast-forward to the present and it appears this logic has its limits.

That the post-Covid luxury boom has given way to a sharp downturn in demand is not simply a reflection of macroeconomic pressures. A combination of soaring prices and declining quality has left many consumers feeling their intelligence is being insulted, which suggests symbols of luxury still need to be anchored in tangible value to command steep sums.

Last year, when Dior was taken to task for the use of a sweatshop labour in its supply chain, Italian prosecutors alleged the brand paid little more than €50 euros a piece for bags which retailed for more than €2500 each. Now LVMH stablemate Loro Piana has been pulled up by the same probe. Such stories make the luxury industry look like a scam selling empty signifiers to suckers.

It’s no surprise that sales of superfakes — low-cost, high-fidelity replicas mostly made in China and sold directly to customers via WhatsApp groups and social media — have rocketed, driven by a new attitude to counterfeits. Whereas owning a fake once came with a sense of shame, now it’s seen as a savvy move. Why risk feeling stupid for buying subpar, overpriced goods, when you can game the system?

It’s not that people no longer want the symbols of luxury. But those symbols have to be grounded in great product to be believable. And if the entire luxury industry has become a simulacrum, where the symbol is hollow, there is little difference between the real and its copy.

It’s well known what one gets when one buys a superfake. It’s more interesting to consider what one doesn’t get: provenance. But if few customers seem to care, it’s because luxury’s narratives of origin and superior craftsmanship no longer seem credible.

We have reached the last stop on the simulacrum express. Can the industry find its way back to the land of the real? Making actual luxury goods and not just telling stories about making luxury goods would be a good place to start.

 

[PDFSD]

If You Can’t Trust Loro Piana, Who Can You Trust?​

This week, court documents linking the top-end brand to Chinese sweatshops outside Milan called the entire luxury sector’s credibility into question.

Loro Piana, one of luxury's most prestigious labels, is the latest brand to be caught up in an ongoing investigation into labour exploitation in Italy. (Instagram)

By Sarah Kent
18 July 2025
BoF PROFESSIONAL

In a factory on the outskirts of Milan, a Chinese tailor spent the last 10 years sewing jackets for just under $5 an hour. He worked 13-hour days without a single day off. Late last year, he stopped getting paid at all. When he complained, his employer beat him so badly with an aluminium and plastic tube that he had to go to the emergency room, according to court documents reviewed by The Business of Fashion.

His work was not for some no-name “pronto moda” brand, but Loro Piana, one of the luxury industry’s most prestigious labels.

The scandal has badly bruised the reputation of the LVMH-owned cashmere label, which has remained a strong performer for the French luxury conglomerate amid a broader sector downturn. But the black mark against one of fashion’s most valued brands has wider implications, at a time when trust in luxury’s value proposition is already eroding.

Loro Piana’s links to sweatshops were revealed at the start of the week in a court ruling that sanctioned the label for failing to adequately control its supply chain. The label, the court alleged, awarded production contracts to shell companies with no real manufacturing capacity, turning a blind eye to sub-contracting that meant jackets it retailed for thousands of dollars were made in illegal, Chinese-owned workshops that exploited workers.


Loro Piana said that as soon as it was made aware of the issue at its supplier, it terminated the relationship, adding that it is committed to continually reviewing and strengthening its control and auditing processes. But the scandal has sent shockwaves through the industry.

While the brand is not the first to be caught up in an ongoing crackdown by Milanese authorities on labour exploitation in luxury’s local supply chains (Dior, Armani and Valentino have all faced similar sanctions), it is the most rarefied.

The century-old label is a member of a particularly elite club. Like Hermès, it holds a near-unimpeachable reputation for offering only the highest levels of quality and craft. Its rare mastery over every step of its supply chain, textile savoir-faire and ability to source the finest baby cashmere and vicuña is central to its elevated status.

Even a scandal last year that linked the brand’s vicuña supply chain to exploitation of indigenous labour in Peru did little to shake this image.

This time feels different, for both Loro Piana and the wider luxury sector.

Consumers are already fed up with eye-popping price hikes amid reports of declining quality. And the cases brought against Dior, Armani and Valentino over the last year have only fuelled doubts about whether luxury products are worth their price tags. Loro Piana’s involvement has made matters significantly worse. Why, shoppers wonder, should they shell out thousands of dollars on luxury products that only cost a fraction of that to make when even a brand like Loro Piana pays just over $100 to produce items that retail for more than $3,000?

The brands say manufacturing costs don’t reflect what it really takes to make and merchandise their products and contest the numbers published in court filings. They also maintain that they have strong systems of supply-chain controls in place and have cooperated with authorities to understand where things have gone wrong.

But for more and more consumers — not to mention vocal critics on social media — that just doesn’t cut it any more.

It doesn’t help that prosecutors in Milan have argued luxury’s links to sweatshop labour are a feature, not a bug of the system: Large brands are routinely negligent in their monitoring efforts, failing to pursue obvious red flags and instead turning a blind eye in order to maximise profits, they say.


Anyone with real familiarity with Italy’s luxury supply chains will acknowledge these issues are a long-standing and open secret. That doesn’t mean they have an easy fix.

It’s in the System​

Roughly half of the world’s luxury clothing and leather goods are made in Italy by thousands of small, often family-run factories. This fragmented, complex supply chain “can pose challenges in transparency and oversight,” LVMH Italy’s president Toni Belloni said in an emailed statement. While the group “is investing significant resources and funds to strengthen controls … areas of fragility remain, so we must work to improve our practices,” he added.

Brands face internal challenges, too. Often the teams responsible for monitoring supply chains are siloed and find it difficult to escalate issues when they arise. Gloomy consumer sentiment, falling luxury demand and the trade war are time sucks for executive attention.

Bringing more manufacturing in-house and reducing the number of suppliers brands work with is one way to reduce risks, but that brings costs and complexity. Regardless of internal adjustments, what hasn’t changed, manufacturers say, is a sourcing system that prioritises speed, price and flexibility above all else, creating the very pressures that encouraged the growth of cut-price sweatshops within the luxury supply chain to begin with.

Labour rights advocates say part of the solution lies with tougher penalties when things go wrong — if the court of public opinion doesn’t do the job first.

Disclosure: LVMH is part of a group of investors who, together, hold a minority interest in The Business of Fashion. All investors have signed shareholders’ documentation guaranteeing BoF’s complete editorial independence.

 

[Phuel]

^^^ At this point, it’s sadly more of a standard to be expected of these brands than some rare exception. They knew all along. They’re all greedy AF.

More than these sorts of lack of humanitarian standards with the brands’ production, the optics of customers being supposedly outraged at these brands' continuous price hikes is simply hilarious: Just stop buying then. It was never “worth" it to begin with. None of these brands are. Nor are any of these brands needed. (I remember wandering around a Saks outlet that resembled a sorting warehouse of some Goodwill— where products that look several Season old still linger (which would be great, if the products were desirable), and digging out a The Row basic sweater jacket, marked down to less than $80 USD. It still didn’t look like it was worth that.)

 

[GRCF]

^^^ At this point, it’s sadly more of a standard to be expected of these brands than some rare exception. They knew all along. They’re all greedy AF.

More than these sorts of lack of humanitarian standards with the brands’ production, the optics of customers being supposedly outraged at these brands' continuous price hikes is simply hilarious: Just stop buying then. It was never “worth" it to begin with. None of these brands are. Nor are any of these brands needed. (I remember wandering around a Saks outlet that resembled a sorting warehouse of some Goodwill— where products that look several Season old still linger (which would be great, if the products were desirable), and digging out a The Row basic sweater jacket, marked down to less than $80 USD. It still didn’t look like it was worth that.)

I wonder though how much this actually hurts their sales. Maybe I am too cynical but I just don't think people shopping at Dior or LP care at all about humanitarian standards. I only know one person who goes into deep dives on brands and their production processes and that is my cousin lol and even then she still buy what she buys.

Also why do they have to make the most gauche and tackiest building facades even if the are temporary?

Wasn't the remodeled Dior flagship in NY supposed to open this month?

 

[Avonlea]

I don't think they care, just like they don't really care about the quality or ridiculously high prices. Few may stop, but the majority will continue to buy.

 

[Phuel]

It doesn’t and won’t hurt their sales. Apparently, the hacks at Prada copying a silly design of an Indian sandal wholesale is more hurtful/offensive/exploitive and demanding of some humanitarian change than the continuous exploitation and abuse of Chinese sweatshop workers. That’s people these days.

 

[Lola701]

Those articles don’t do anything tbh.
The reality is that, as long as the quality follow, people don’t care about the ethics. Even more considering that, even if it’s made in Chinese sweatshops outside of Milan, it’s still MADE IN ITALY!

And LVMH and others are always going to get away with this because it’s about their subscontractors and never their factories.

The reality is that it was almost expected. The shoes, much like the Dior booktote, had a boost in visibility and people wanted them. It was sure that they were going to call subscontractors to respond to the demand.

Maybe I’m unphased because it has always been the case in the industry. At the time when the quality was exceptional, working conditions weren’t that great either.

It’s a dangerous game but those are conglomerates in an industry. Industrial practices means shady practices.