Christian Dior’s $57 Handbags Have a Hidden Cost: Reputational Risk
An Italian investigation is shining a harsh light on the supply chain of luxury brands
3 min
Christian Dior struck gold when it found a supplier willing to assemble a €2,600 handbag, equivalent to around $2,816, for just €53 a piece—or did it? Cleaning up the reputational damage may not come cheap.
A Milan court named LVMH -owned Dior and Giorgio Armani as two brands whose products were made in sweatshop-like conditions in Italy. Images of an unkempt facility where designer handbags were produced, which was raided as part of an investigation into Italy’s fashion supply chain, are worlds apart from those the luxury industry likes to show its customers.
To keep up with the strong demand for their goods, some high-end brands rely on independent workshops to supplement their in-house factories. Sales at LVMH’s leather goods division have almost doubled since 2019.
While more outsourced manufacturing is understandable in a boom, brands may also have taken cost-saving measures too far in a push to juice profits. Some of Dior’s production was contracted out directly to a Chinese-run factory in Italy, where workers assembled the bags in unsafe conditions, according to a translated court order. In other instances, Dior’s suppliers subcontracted work out to low-cost factories that also used irregular labour.
Nipping the problem in the bud would require hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment in new facilities to bring more manufacturing in-house. The alternative is for Dior to pay its suppliers more and keep them on a tighter leash. Either way, the result seems likely to be lower profits than shareholders have grown accustomed to.
Top luxury brands such as Christian Dior can have very high margins because consumers are willing to pay steep prices for goods they see as status symbols. They also can spread high fixed costs, such as expensive advertising campaigns over a large volume of sales.
For the LVMH group overall, the cost of making the products it sells—everything from Champagne to watches to cosmetics—amounted to 31% of sales in 2023. But the margins on big-brand handbags are probably at the high end of the spectrum.
Bernstein analyst Luca Solca estimates that a €10 billion luxury fashion label, roughly Dior’s size, may spend just 23% of its sales on the raw materials and labour that go into its products. This implies a €2,600 Dior purse would cost €598 to make, equivalent to $US647 for a roughly $US2,800 product at current exchange rates.
In reality, the cost may be even lower, based on the results of the Italian investigation. The €53-a-piece assembly price it cited, equivalent to around $US57, didn’t include the cost of the leather and hardware, but that would add only another €150 or so, according to one Italian supplier.
Advertising fees are a further €156 per handbag, according to Bernstein’s analysis, and depreciation of the company’s assets is €156. Running the brand’s stores—including paying the rent on some of the most exclusive shopping streets in the world—and head-office costs come to an additional €390. This leaves €1,300 of pure operating profit for Dior, or a 50% margin.
“This is the reality of the business,” says Solca. “The retail price for the goods of major luxury brands is typically between eight and 12 times the cost of making the product.”
LVMH hasn’t commented on the investigation, which first made headlines nearly a month ago. Meanwhile, a public-relations storm is brewing. Luxury influencers on social media are asking what exactly people are paying for when they shell out for a fancy purse. Recent price increases also make the cheap manufacturing costs hard to stomach. A mini Lady Dior bag that cost $3,500 in 2019 will set shoppers back $5,500 today, a 57% increase.
A dozen other luxury labels that remain unnamed are under investigation for similar issues in their Italian supply chains, so this may be a much wider problem.
Profits will take a hit if the industry decides to clean up its act. But the cost of doing nothing might be higher. Luxury brands that charge customers thousands of dollars and rely on a reputation for quality can’t afford to be cheap.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
Australia’s housing market defies forecasts as prices surge past pandemic-era benchmarks.
Records keep falling in 2025 as harbourfront, beachfront and blue-chip estates crowd the top of the market.
JPMorgan Chase has a ‘strong bias’ against adding staff, while Walmart is keeping its head count flat. Major employers are in a new, ultra lean era.
3 min
It’s the corporate gamble of the moment: Can you run a company, increasing sales and juicing profits, without adding people?
American employers are increasingly making the calculation that they can keep the size of their teams flat—or shrink through layoffs—without harming their businesses.
Part of that thinking is the belief that artificial intelligence will be used to pick up some of the slack and automate more processes. Companies are also hesitant to make any moves in an economy many still describe as uncertain.
JPMorgan Chase’s chief financial officer told investors recently that the bank now has a “very strong bias against having the reflective response” to hire more people for any given need. Aerospace and defense company RTX boasted last week that its sales rose even without adding employees.
Goldman Sachs , meanwhile, sent a memo to staffers this month saying the firm “will constrain head count growth through the end of the year” and reduce roles that could be more efficient with AI. Walmart , the nation’s largest private employer, also said it plans to keep its head count roughly flat over the next three years, even as its sales grow.
“If people are getting more productive, you don’t need to hire more people,” Brian Chesky , Airbnb’s chief executive, said in an interview. “I see a lot of companies pre-emptively holding the line, forecasting and hoping that they can have smaller workforces.”
Airbnb employs around 7,000 people, and Chesky says he doesn’t expect that number to grow much over the next year. With the help of AI, he said he hopes that “the team we already have can get considerably more work done.”
Many companies seem intent on embracing a new, ultralean model of staffing, one where more roles are kept unfilled and hiring is treated as a last resort. At Intuit , every time a job comes open, managers are pushed to justify why they need to backfill it, said Sandeep Aujla , the company’s chief financial officer. The new rigor around hiring helps combat corporate bloat.
“That typical behavior that settles in—and we’re all guilty of it—is, historically, if someone leaves, if Jane Doe leaves, I’ve got to backfill Jane,” Aujla said in an interview. Now, when someone quits, the company asks: “Is there an opportunity for us to rethink how we staff?”
Intuit has chosen not to replace certain roles in its finance, legal and customer-support functions, he said. In its last fiscal year, the company’s revenue rose 16% even as its head count stayed flat, and it is planning only modest hiring in the current year.
The desire to avoid hiring or filling jobs reflects a growing push among executives to see a return on their AI spending. On earnings calls, mentions of ROI and AI investments are increasing, according to an analysis by AlphaSense, reflecting heightened interest from analysts and investors that companies make good on the millions they are pouring into AI.
Many executives hope that software coding assistants and armies of digital agents will keep improving—even if the current results still at times leave something to be desired.
The widespread caution in hiring now is frustrating job seekers and leading many employees within organizations to feel stuck in place, unable to ascend or take on new roles, workers and bosses say.
Inside many large companies, HR chiefs also say it is becoming increasingly difficult to predict just how many employees will be needed as technology takes on more of the work.
Some employers seem to think that fewer employees will actually improve operations.
Meta Platforms this past week said it is cutting 600 jobs in its AI division, a move some leaders hailed as a way to cut down on bureaucracy.
“By reducing the size of our team, fewer conversations will be required to make a decision, and each person will be more load-bearing and have more scope and impact,” Alexandr Wang , Meta’s chief AI officer, wrote in a memo to staff seen by The Wall Street Journal.
Though layoffs haven’t been widespread through the economy, some companies are making cuts. Target on Thursday said it would cut about 1,000 corporate employees, and close another 800 open positions, totaling around 8% of its corporate workforce. Michael Fiddelke , Target’s incoming CEO, said in a memo sent to staff that too “many layers and overlapping work have slowed decisions, making it harder to bring ideas to life.”
A range of other employers, from the electric-truck maker Rivian to cable and broadband provider Charter Communications , have announced their own staff cuts in recent weeks, too.
Operating with fewer people can still pose risks for companies by straining existing staffers or hurting efforts to develop future leaders, executives and economists say. “It’s a bit of a double-edged sword,” said Matthew Martin , senior U.S. economist at Oxford Economics. “You want to keep your head count costs down now—but you also have to have an eye on the future.”
A 30-metre masterpiece unveiled in Monaco brings Lamborghini’s supercar drama to the high seas, powered by 7,600 horsepower and unmistakable Italian design.
An opulent Ryde home, packed with cinema, pool, sauna and more, is hitting the auction block with a $1 reserve.
