Why Luxury Fashion Still Hides Its Supply Chains While Mass‑Market Brands Race Toward Transparency

For more than a decade, fashion has been split between two very different transparency trajectories. On one side, mass‑market giants such as H&M publish detailed supplier lists, disclose factory locations, and increasingly report on purchasing practices and environmental impacts. On the other, many luxury brands continue to operate behind a veil of secrecy, offering only selective sustainability narratives and minimal supply‑chain disclosure. This divergence is not accidental. It is the product of structural incentives, brand mythology, and the political economy of fashion itself.

Recent longitudinal research by Jestratijevic, Uanhoro and Rana (2024) demonstrates that although transparency has increased across the industry, luxury brands consistently lag behind mass‑market companies in the depth and specificity of their sustainability disclosures. Their study shows that luxury houses tend to rely on narrative‑driven communication, emphasising heritage, craftsmanship and brand values, while avoiding the publication of hard data such as supplier lists, wage information or environmental performance metrics. By contrast, mass‑market brands have moved toward more granular reporting, partly because their scale and visibility make opacity reputationally costly.

H&M is a clear example of this dynamic. As one of the world’s largest apparel retailers, it has been under sustained scrutiny from NGOs, journalists and regulators. The company began publishing its supplier list in 2013 and has since expanded its disclosures to include tier‑1 and tier‑2 facilities, country‑level sourcing data and environmental performance indicators. This shift is not simply moral; it is infrastructural. Jia et al. (2024) argue that supply‑chain transparency is an organisational capability requiring digital traceability systems, standardised data collection and cross‑functional governance. Large mass‑market firms have invested heavily in these systems because transparency has become a strategic asset in investor relations, regulatory compliance and brand positioning.

Luxury brands, however, operate under a different set of incentives. Their business model depends on mystique, scarcity and the careful management of symbolic value. Revealing that a £1,500 dress is produced in the same region—or even the same factory cluster—as a £59 high‑street garment risks collapsing the symbolic distance that justifies luxury pricing. For smaller luxury labels, such as Victoria Beckham, the challenge is even more acute. These brands often rely on intermediaries and external production partners, which limits their internal visibility and capacity to map supply chains. Even when they possess the technical ability to disclose more, the perceived brand risk of transparency outweighs the potential reputational benefits. Secrecy becomes a strategic choice, not a failure of governance.

This opacity also intersects with the problem of greenwashing. Adamkiewicz et al. (2022) highlight how fashion brands—across both luxury and mass‑market segments—use vague sustainability claims, selective disclosure and aesthetic cues to signal environmental responsibility without delivering substantive change. Luxury brands, however, engage in a distinctive form of greenwashing rooted in their cultural capital. They often frame sustainability through the language of timelessness, craftsmanship and “investment pieces,” implying that high prices and low purchase frequency automatically equate to environmental virtue. This narrative allows them to sidestep questions about fibre sourcing, production volumes, labour conditions and end‑of‑life impacts. Craft becomes a moral shield, even when production is outsourced to standard industrial facilities.

Mass‑market brands, by contrast, tend to greenwash through “conscious” collections, recycling schemes and carbon‑offsetting rhetoric. Their transparency does not eliminate greenwashing; it simply shifts its form. A brand can publish extensive supply‑chain data while still obscuring the structural drivers of overproduction and waste. Transparency and greenwashing can coexist, and often do.

The deeper question is why luxury fashion feels able to ignore environmental accountability. Part of the answer lies in economic insulation. High margins and inelastic demand protect luxury brands from the market pressures that push mass‑market companies toward disclosure. Another part lies in cultural power. Luxury’s symbolic authority—its association with status, aspiration and taste—can overshadow environmental critique, especially when sustainability is still a secondary purchase driver for many affluent consumers. Historically, NGOs and transparency indices focused on fast fashion, leaving luxury relatively unchallenged. Only recently have tools such as the Fashion Transparency Index begun to systematically benchmark luxury houses, and even then, many luxury brands score extremely low.

Ultimately, the transparency divide reflects the political economy of fashion. Mass‑market brands disclose because they must; luxury brands withhold because they can. But this equilibrium is shifting. Regulatory frameworks such as the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and emerging due‑diligence laws are beginning to erode the space for luxury opacity. As disclosure becomes mandatory rather than voluntary, the myth of luxury as inherently sustainable will face increasing scrutiny.

For movements like yours—centred on wardrobe longevity, ecological devotion and systemic reform—this moment is an opportunity. Transparency is not just a reporting exercise; it is a redistribution of power. When supply chains become visible, so do the workers, communities and ecosystems that sustain them. When luxury brands are forced to reveal the realities behind their narratives, the industry’s hierarchies become harder to defend. And when consumers understand that sustainability is not a matter of price point but of practice, the cultural authority of luxury begins to crack.

The future of fashion will not be shaped by the brands that hide, but by the movements that demand visibility, accountability and justice. Luxury may cling to secrecy for now, but the world is changing around it—and transparency is becoming inevitable.

References

Adamkiewicz, J., Kochańska, E., Adamkiewicz, I. and Łukasik, R.M. (2022) ‘Greenwashing and sustainable fashion industry’, Current Opinion in Green and Sustainable Chemistry, 38, pp. 1–6.

Jestratijevic, I., Uanhoro, J.O. and Rana, M.R.I. (2024) ‘Transparency of sustainability disclosures among luxury and mass‑market fashion brands: Longitudinal approach’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 436, pp. 1–15.

Jia, F., Li, K., Chen, L., Nazrul, A. and Yan, F. (2024) ‘Supply chain transparency: a roadmap for future research’, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 124(9), pp. 2665–2688.

Fashion Revolution (2023) Fashion Transparency Index. Available at: https://www.fashionrevolution.org

H&M Group (2024) Sustainability and Supply Chain Transparency Portal. Available at: https://hmgroup.com