Chanel’s exotic skin ban was a practical decision, but with consequences

Not everyone heralded Chanel’s decision to ban exotic skin from its future
collections. An Op-Ed by several Chairs of the International Union for
Conservation of Nature, IUCN, argued that banning reptile skins will not
save any species.

“In our opinion, as leaders within the world’s largest and oldest
conservation organisation, the decision may be well-meaning, but it is
wrong. It will adversely affect the conservation of wild animals and the
livelihoods of the people who live with and depend on that wildlife,” the
authors co-wrote in the Business of Fashion.

Banning sustainable conservation programs jeopardises people

“We strongly support efforts to ensure high standards of animal welfare in
all industries, and salute the efforts of companies exercising leadership
in this regard. With reptiles, the luxury goods companies sourcing wild
skins have empowered people to engage in excellent conservation programs,
in many countries. These programs are thrown into jeopardy by the new
measures, particularly if it sets a precedent for others.”

Exotic-skinned accessories are not Chanel’s profit drivers

Chanel, let it be said, didn’t solely ban reptile skins from the good of
its luxurious heart. Its share of accessories and bags made from exotic
animals is but a small, single digit percentage, of its overall lucrative
accessories business.

Bruno Pavlovsky, Chanel’s president of fashion, told WWD the decision “was
primarily a practical one, as it had become too tricky to find animal skins
that met both the brand’s design and ethical standards.”

It has since emerged that unlike Kering and other luxury players, Chanel
has not invested in securing its own exotic skin farms, in the same way it
has been buying factories and weaving companies in order sustain
craftsmanship and skills.

LVMH, as early as 2011, jointly purchased and controlled Heng Long, one of
the world’s leading and most renowned tanneries of crocodilian leather,
together with its founding family. Hermès has also been active in buying
and controlling its supply chain: its tannery division, Hermès Cuirs
Précieux, acquired French calf leather specialist Tanneries du Puy in late
2015. The company is also reported to own reptile leather maker Roggwiller
in Louisiana, USA.

Chanel, it appears, missed an opportunity to vertically integrate
production of exotic skinned accessories, relying mostly on third party
farms for its products. “It is our experience that it is becoming
increasingly difficult to source exotic skins,” Pavlovsky stated.

The question is if other sizeable luxury brands will follow Chanel’s path
and the impact it will have on sustainable programs and the livelihoods of
those who operate them.

Photo credit: Chanel Small Hobo bag in python, source Chanel website