The Debrief

Background:As the year comes to a close, BoF’s executive editor Brian Baskin and senior correspondent Sheena Butler-Young look back on some of their favourite articles from 2024. The stories include topics that dominated industry conversations throughout the year, as well as some that have had key updates since publication.The four articles they discuss are “How Nike Ran Off Course” by sports correspondent Daniel-Yaw Miller, Butler-Young’s three-part Black beauty series, “The Fight for Influencer Marketing Dollars Heats Up” by senior news and features editor Diana Pearl and “Inside Luxury’s Italian Sweatshops Problem” by sustainability correspondent Sarah Kent. The conversation wraps up with a set of predictions for what’s to come in 2025.Key Insights:Miller’s “How Nike Ran Off Course” topped the list of key stories from 2024. It was a trying year for the brand, marred by declining sales quarter after quarter. Many pointed to former CEO John Donahoe as the source, with marketing and product feeling stale since he joined in 2020. “This was the year where it really crystallized that there were viable alternatives to Nike in the market,” said Baskin, with competitors encroaching from all sides. Looking ahead, Butler-Young said “Nike is not resting on its laurels” and is doing a lot to try to “turn around a very large ship,” starting with selecting a new CEO, longtime Nike executive Elliott Hill.Sarah Kent’s story, “Inside Luxury’s Italian Sweatshops Problem,” digs into this year’s viral scandal surrounding luxury brands’ labour practices. “It found that luxury brands that manufacture in Italy…routinely turn a blind eye to labour exploitation in their supply chain,” said Butler-Young. “They ignore red flags raised by audits and sustainability teams for the sake of convenience and cost.” Dior in particular faced social media backlash for “the disparity between what people pay for products and then some of the things that happen in the supply chain,” said Butler-Young. Next year, brands will face penalties for failing to comply with new European due diligence regulations.Baskin and Butler-Young shared predictions for the industry in 2025. For Butler-Young, ESG and DEI will be key to watch as they “attempt to continue to take shape in a very hostile political environment,” said Butler-Young. Early adopters of DEI who stick with it despite ebbs and flows might benefit by being the most innovative in the space down the line. For Baskin, “My prediction is one of these big struggling brands … is going to successfully pull out of its slump,” he said, pointing to Nike as a potential winner. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the late 2010s, and particularly after George Floyd’s murder in 2020, the fashion industry appeared to embrace a progressive awakening on issues like racial justice and climate change. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) departments were established, and companies announced ambitious sustainability targets. Yet, from the outset, critics - often from the same communities these initiatives aimed to support - questioned the authenticity of this activism, suggesting it was more about marketing than meaningful change.Now, those sceptics may have been proven right. Following the 2023 Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action, companies have begun scaling back hiring initiatives, grants for Black founders, and other DEI efforts. Sustainability commitments are also under scrutiny, with the industry far behind its climate goals and facing a hostile political environment in the US. Executive editor Brian Baskin is joined by sustainability correspondent Sarah Kent and senior correspondent Sheena Butler-Young to untangle the future of DEI and ESG (environmental, social, and governance).Key Insights: Diversity and inclusion in fashion was built on already fragile foundations. “Most companies didn’t have a DEI department before George Floyd,” Butler-Young points out. She explains that these departments were often created hastily and emotionally, which left them vulnerable to becoming performative. “We never moved beyond that conversation into ‘how is this good for business? Why does this matter for a company beyond social good?’”"The acronym DEI has become so politicised,’” continues Butler-Young. "Something that started off as having some good intentions and some really value-driven tenets, and suddenly it's co-opted and becomes something almost derogatory." Companies are now moving away from the language, but that often means moving away from the work as well. The story in the world of sustainability contains some parallels. “What we’ve begun to see in a handful of cases is a quiet reframing of sustainability commitments, making them less ambitious and, in some ways, more realistic,” says Kent. This includes “the restructuring of sustainability teams, significant layoffs, and a shifting focus.” Although sustainability efforts are losing traction in the US, Kent points out that European regulations will keep the pressure on global brands. “From an investor standpoint, this is a compliance issue - companies need to meet laws or face significant penalties, which is obviously not good for business.”Additional Resources:What Fashion’s Advocacy Will Look Like in the Trump EraTrump’s Impact on Fashion Takes Shape | BoF Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Resale is no longer confined to thrift stores or niche platforms; it has grown into a roughly $50 billion industry in the U.S. alone, by some measures. Platforms like Poshmark, The RealReal and Vestiaire Collective have transformed the experience, making it more accessible and attractive to consumers at every price point. At the same time, brands are increasingly stepping into the space, with some launching their own programs to resell returned or used merchandise, transforming what was once a reactive practice into a strategic business opportunity. And new start-ups hope to create a new secondhand market out of brands’ returned merchandise. Retail editor Cat Chen and e-commerce correspondent Malique Morris join senior correspondent Sheena Butler-Young and executive editor Brian Baskin to unpack the evolving resale landscape. Key Insights: The destigmatisation of secondhand fashion is closely tied to convenience. “A large part of the equation is how easy it is to shop and sell secondhand,” explains Chen. “There are dozens of platforms that do peer-to-peer shopping options where you can buy something secondhand for, you know, at a fraction of the cost of retail where you can sell something that you've had for a while.… When resale is top of mind like that, I think the market adapts to that acceptance mentality.”But establishing a leading position in the market has proven difficult, despite rapid adoption. “The learning for operators of these platforms is that there’s very little consumer loyalty in this space,” says Chen. “When I consider selling something, I’m going to look at every single platform - whichever one gives me the quickest sale, the easiest sale, and the most money.” This dynamic has created a fiercely competitive landscape, with platforms racing to attract sellers by offering the best incentives. Bazar is taking a different approach to resale, stocking its marketplace with returned, goods brands would struggle to restock without refurbishment, including some fast fashion. “Bazar doesn’t go through the trouble of necessarily fixing items. It’s kind of listed as is, and customers get a ‘what you see is what you get’ experience,” says Morris. Additionally, Bazar allows fast fashion brands like Cider to offload inventory, which many traditional resale platforms avoid. “There is a level of transparency there which is supposed to be a part of the proposition of sustainability and a part of the proposition of resale as well.”As the industry develops, Morris envisions brands taking more ownership of resale, as platforms like Revive are already helping brands create their own resale programs to handle returned merchandise. Such efforts could turn resale into a sustainable, profitable venture, making it a key part of brand operations. “If resale can prove that it is an avenue for [brands] to achieve profitability … I can see it becoming a bigger priority brands which will make the shopping experience all the better for consumers."Additional Resources:Fashion’s Big Opportunity in Reselling the Unsellable | BoFShould Brands Stop Offering Free Returns? | BoF Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Background:Over the past year, the pristine image luxury brands have built on their links to artisanal craft, ethical manufacturing and quality has begun to crumble, buffeted by a scandal that has linked labels including Dior and Armani to sweatshops in Italy. According to investigators in Milan, factories producing for the brands were operating illegally and exploiting workers. Dior and Armani have said the allegations don’t reflect their commitment to ethical practices, but prosecutors say the issues uncovered by the probe are systemic and entrenched. Around a dozen more brands could still be implicated, with further cases expected in the coming months. This week, BoF senior correspondent Sheena Butler-Young and chief sustainability correspondent Sarah Kent discuss the findings of BoF’s own investigation into how exploitative practices persist in luxury’s supply chains and what the scandal means for the industry. Key Insights: Luxury brands use their high prices and Italian manufacturing to sidestep concerns over labour practices frequently levelled against lower-priced labels. But the problems pervade even Italy’s most exclusive supply chains. “This may seem shocking and surprising to those outside this part of the industry, but in Italian manufacturing, everyone knows,” said Kent. “It's an open secret.”BoF’s investigation found brands routinely turn a blind eye to labour exploitation, ignoring red flags raised by audits and sustainability teams in the interest of convenience and cost. New regulations mean the risks associated with such scandals will soon be much more severe. Under incoming European due-diligence rules, brands could be subject to penalties of up to five percent of global revenue if they fail to adequately monitor and prevent labour abuses in their supply chains. “There are still a lot of questions around how that's going to be enforced and what that might actually mean,” said Kent. “But that is a chunky piece of change for any big company.”Additional Resources:Inside Luxury’s Italian Sweatshops ProblemIs Luxury Finally Set for a Sustainability Reckoning?Are Luxury Brands Still Worth It? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.