Gucci Launches Sustainability Drive as European Fashion Regulation Looms
Makers of luxury goods, whose products are generally less damaging to the environment than fast fashion, are having to work to make their operations greener
3 min
Italian luxury brand Gucci is set to launch a hub in Tuscany promoting more durable and less wasteful fashion, as it joins efforts by the sector to meet comingEuropean regulations requiring companies to limit their impact on the environment.
The so-called circular hub will be a research-and-development centre to study ways to improve circularity, including through better durability and recyclability of products, as well as minimising waste and pollution from production to end of life. It will boost transformation in the Italian fashion industry’s production models, said Gucci in a joint release with French parent Kering.
Kering said the hub should promote the use of fewer natural resources and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. While it didn’t detail how much it expects the hub to benefit the environment, the company did say it would cut the emissions from managing waste generated by Gucci’s leather-goods production by up to 60%.
Kering expects the hub to act as a forerunner for new models that it anticipates will be made obligatory by European regulations in the coming years. Last year, the European Union set out a plan to reduce the environmental damage of the apparel industry, which contributes as much as 8% of total greenhouse-gas emissions, according to United Nations estimates.
All makers of clothes and accessories would be subject to the new measures, even if the higher quality of luxury products and the brands’ typically more local and integrated supply chains tend to make them less environmentally damaging than the products manufactured by fast-fashion companies.
Clothing should be “long-lived and recyclable, and to a great extent made of recycled fibres,” the EU said in its proposed plan. It said labelling should make it easier for consumers to gauge the impact of what they buy.
Legislation in the EU will be formulated to enforce the new measures over the coming years, but some countries are moving ahead on their own. France has introduced a law obliging clothing producers and retailers in France to make clear to consumers the environmental impact of their products, including the amount of recycled material, the use of renewable energy in their production and their recyclability. The regulation applies to larger companies that had annual revenue above €50 million, equivalent to roughly $53 million, as of the beginning of this year and will be applied to smaller players from next year.
Companies are also working to comply with potential supply-chain regulations that could require larger firms operating in the EU to identify, prevent and remedy risks to human rights and the environment in their supply chains, such as minimum age requirements, worker safety, pollution and biodiversity loss.
Some fashion and consumer-goods companies have turned to new technology to help gather data on their supply chains and track material, though transparency remains tough to achieve in many cases. But luxury-goods companies such as Kering have an advantage over brands that sell to more general consumers, analysts at financial services company Jefferies said in a research note this week.
“Luxury brands generally have strong and transparent supply chains and an opportunity to better communicate sourcing quality,” they said.
On the other hand, high-end brands also come under more scrutiny, said Luca Solca, a luxury-goods analyst at brokerage Bernstein.
“Luxury brands have the burden to stand for our better selves, as they embody people’s aspirations and ideals,” Mr. Solca said. “In this respect it is on them to stand up to scrutiny when it comes to respecting the environment and society.”
Waste is a particularly tricky proposition for luxury brands, which have traditionally incinerated unsold stock to avoid discounting their products or diluting their brand image. The EU’s plan envisages requiring retailers to disclose how they deal with unsold textiles and even contemplates a possible ban on destroying unsold or returned clothes.
That would pose a problem for brands that don’t recycle or resell much of their leftover stock. In 2018, U.K. luxury fashion house Burberry said it would stop burning unsold inventory amid pressure from environmental groups, but some peers continue the practice.
“Product destruction can cause consumer backlash if reported in the press, [while] off-price sales are detrimental to brand equity,” Jefferies said. “Thus recycling is the preferable option, yet is an additional cost.”
However, some companies are starting to see the durable nature of luxury products as a life-cycle management opportunity. Kering-owned fashion house Bottega Veneta recently introduced a lifetime warranty on its handbags and the wider industry is increasingly open to allowing resale via secondhand luxury platforms.
Gucci’s circularity hub in Tuscany will involve all Kering facilities in the region, including Gucci’s production sites, raw materials suppliers and finished product producers. The hub’s activities will later be extended to Kering’s other brands, before opening to the wider fashion sector.
“The fashion industry needs to accelerate and launch serious actions to catalyse deep change, rethinking the way we produce and use resources as well,” Kering Chief Sustainability Officer Marie-Claire Daveu said.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
From making unpopular decisions to learning when to listen, leaders from five businesses reveal what nobody prepared them for — and how running a company has challenged their expectations.
Technology and semiconductor shares fell sharply as investors questioned the debt financing the AI infrastructure boom and confronted higher rates and Chinese competition.
Elon Musk is exploring a potential merger between Tesla and SpaceX, a deal that could reshape the future of AI, robotics, autonomous vehicles and space technology. With a combined valuation potentially reaching $3.5 trillion, the move could bring Musk’s vision of an interconnected technology ecosystem closer to reality, although a deal remains uncertain.
5 min
Elon Musk has engineered ties between Tesla TSLA 3.41%increase; up pointing triangle and SpaceX SPCX 7.79%increase; up pointing triangle that are hard to break, and now he wants to fuse them together permanently.
Musk has run both Tesla and SpaceX concurrently over the past two decades, using a schedule that dictated which days he spent focused on each business.
The companies have often shared resources and personnel, signaling their close ties. Last year, SpaceX looked into creating a spacesuit for Tesla’s humanoid robot Optimus, a person familiar with the matter said. Tesla last week showed off its new Roadster, a vehicle featuring SpaceX rocket thrusters that it hopes to soon bring to market.
And in recent months, Musk has repositioned both companies by expanding beyond their core operations toward a shared mission centered on artificial intelligence.
The world’s richest man on Tuesday signaled his interest in tying up SpaceX and Tesla, marking what would be the biggest corporate merger of all time. Because he serves as chief executive of SpaceX and Tesla, Musk said committees of independent directors at both companies are evaluating a possible deal, adding that a transaction might not come to fruition.
The committees will likely evaluate, with lawyers and bankers, how each company would fare in a potential deal and how a deal might best be structured. They then present their conclusions to their respective boards, who typically vote on whether to proceed.
“It’s an odd Kabuki dance where two groups of people are talking and I can’t be in the conversation,” Musk told SpaceX investors on Tuesday in response to an analyst’s question about a potential deal.
For Musk, the merger supports his vision of a world full of autonomous cars, humanoid robots and weekly rocket launches, as well as the data centers and satellites required to keep the whole thing running.
Some investors and analysts said they expect a transaction would be structured as an all-stock deal, with SpaceX potentially paying a modest premium for Tesla shares.
SpaceX, which has a market value of about $2 trillion, said it is seeing sharp growth in revenue across its businesses, which include operating data centers, launching rockets and operating satellite networks such as the internet service Starlink. Tesla is valued at about $1.5 trillion and is expanding its operations beyond its automotive and energy business. Shares in both companies traded higher following the news Tuesday.
Musk’s substantial ownership stakes in both companies, along with voting control at SpaceX, has enabled him to set the deal in motion. Analysts and investors said the deal will probably face regulatory scrutiny internationally, though some see Musk’s close relationship with the Trump administration as an asset to getting approval.
Blurred lines
The companies haven’t said which directors are on the special committees evaluating a potential deal. Several SpaceX and Tesla board members have either personal or business ties to Musk. And like Musk, venture capitalist Ira Ehrenpreis sits on both boards.
In a filing this week, Tesla outlined millions of dollars in business agreements with SpaceX and its subsidiaries last year, including $143 million in car sales to SpaceX, $3.3 million in advertising that it bought on the social-media platform X and $430 million in revenue from the sale of Megapack batteries for SpaceX’s data centers.
The companies also split the cost of resources including the use of Musk’s SpaceX jet and the bill for his personal security, which he runs through a private company.
Employees at both companies routinely move between companies to work on special projects, and some executives have dual roles, including Charles Kuehmann, vice president of materials engineering at both SpaceX and Tesla, and Ashok Elluswamy, the vice president of AI software at Tesla who runs a joint venture with SpaceX called Digital Optimus.
Over the years, Musk has launched new startups within his empire, including brain-implant company Neuralink, underground-tunnel developer the Boring Company and xAI, the AI startup that merged with SpaceX in February.
It is that AI business that Musk thinks can serve a market worth tens of trillions of dollars, justifying the need for a merger.
The business case goes like this: Tesla is developing robotaxis and robots, which it calls “physical AI.” SpaceX is working on the back end of physical AI: the data-center capacity and internet connection required for those robotaxis and robots to operate continuously.
“I don’t see what the value of Tesla is if it’s not merged with SpaceX,” said investment adviser Ross Gerber, a former Tesla bull turned critic invested in both companies. “If they don’t merge, the brains of everything that runs Tesla is owned by another company.”
On top of it all, both companies face constraints on the supply chains they need to make this world a reality, particularly when it comes to chips. To address this, Musk earlier this year announced a joint venture between Tesla, SpaceX and Intel to design and manufacture chips in Texas. “The most epic chip-building exercise by far,” he has said.
Musk at the wheel
For Musk, a merger would also solve two problems: demands on his attention and his lack of control at Tesla.
Tesla for years was Musk’s only public company, a status that came with greater scrutiny. There, Musk reports to a public board, as well as individual investors who make up around 30% of Tesla’s voting power, according to FactSet.
The question of Musk’s attention became a particular focus for investors and the board in recent years after he acquired Twitter in 2022 and launched xAI in 2023, and again in 2025 as he spent time in Washington, D.C., running the Department of Government Efficiency in the early months of President Trump’s second term.
As Tesla’s car business suffered in 2025, Musk threatened to take his AI ambitions outside the company if he wasn’t granted 25% voting control. Last November, Tesla shareholders approved a new pay package for Musk, which created a path for him to vastly expand his stake.
As of Sept. 30, Musk owned a roughly 20% stake in Tesla, according to the company’s proxy filing.
The SpaceX IPO gave Musk a different path. When SpaceX went public in June, the deal’s structure enabled him to have more than 80% voting power at the company—so much that he can’t be fired and decisions can’t be made without his support.
If SpaceX acquires Tesla, he will likely stay in control.
A restored 1860s Brisbane residence transformed by GRAYA has smashed Paddington’s house price record, selling for more than $12 million.
A record-breaking $11 million sale at The Centennial Collection has set a new benchmark for luxury apartment living in Bondi Junction.
