Fashion. It stands today as one of the largest grossing markets in the world. Striving to present today’s consumer with the newest and most lucrative trends and styles. However, many companies neglect their societal responsibility in order to release the most profitable of attire. The article I read today was a piece that covered the ethics of three of the largest names in fashion; Louise Vuitton, Gucci and Michael Kors. All three companies are facing serious backlash after being associated with a Finnish fox breeder known as Saga Furs. Saga Furs is being investigated after footage was released of female blue foxes being purposely bred over weight in order to produce the most fur. In Finland this is considered illegal activity according to animal activists groups that state, “it is illegal in Finland to breed livestock in a way that causes animals to suffer.”(YLE)
The war against real animal made goods can be dated back as far as 1980. This debate has put forth countless conflicts between the fashion industry and pro-animal activists such as PETA. As each generation takes hold, the priorities of society are subjected to change. Currently the consumer is becoming more and more aware of the horrors of animal cruelty and the damages it leaves on the eco-system. So, for a business to actively partake in animal cruelty is a major downturn in their success to the public.
I couldn’t help but relate this blatant disregard for animal life to R. Edward Freeman’s explanation of the Stake Holder Theory. Where the continuation of these types of behaviours will eventually regulate these companies into decline. This situation contradicts part of Friedmans argument where he states that, “They can do good – but only at their own expense”, because by not using animal furs businesses really don’t lose that much. The foxes shown in the article weigh over 5 times their regular weight, putting them in an unmotorized state. The horrible pictures attached to this article show extremely obese foxes living in wire cages. The imagery supporting this article shines a very poor light on all companies involved.
These three companies are lacking to realize that by neglecting a moral compass you’re not only hurting the consumer or environment or animal… you’re hurting your business. Nobody wants to be associated with the company that bred obese foxes for profit and snapped their necks in order to keep the fur intact. The concept of ethics extends past just money. A company can’t buy itself a good reputation or name. It has to be earned. Therefore, regardless of how convenient it is to do the ethical thing, a company must create time for it if they hope to succeed.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/impact-activism-on-fur/
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/top-brands-using-fur-from-monster-foxes/
Word Count: 449