Montblanc contract workers take luxury giant Richemont to court
Today, 1 July, marks the opening of the court case brought by Z Production workers against Pelletteria Richemont Firenze, the Scandicci (FI)-based company responsible for outsourcing the production of Montblanc handbags. Pelletteria Richemont is a subsidiary of Compagnie Financière Richemont, a Geneva-based (CH) financial holding operating in the fashion and luxury sectors, and the owner of the Montblanc brand.
The claim, filed with the labour section of the Florence Tribunal, seeks to establish that the relationship between Z Production and Pelletteria Richemont did not constitute a genuine subcontract, and calls for the workers to be recognised as direct employees of Pelletteria Richemont Firenze. The suit also demands the annulment of their dismissal and their reinstatement within the company’s supply chain.
Should the six Pakistani workers leading the case succeed, the ruling could represent a turning point for thousands of exploited workers across the Made in Italy supply chains. It would be the first time a fashion brand is held directly responsible for working conditions within its supply chain—potentially exposing a system dominated by major luxury labels that do not manufacture their own products but instead outsource production to workshops where exploitation is driven to the lowest possible cost.
Twelve-hour shifts, six days a week. Undeclared work. Fake part-time contracts. Falsified apprenticeships. No workplace safety measures. Wages as low as three euros an hour. Along the invisible chains of value production behind Made in Italy, this is the lived reality of thousands of workers who produce handbags and garments for the world’s largest multinational fashion conglomerates.
Over the past years, hundreds of striking workers across the plains between Florence and Prato—the largest fashion district in Europe—have testified to these conditions. Investigations by the Milan Prosecutor’s Office have confirmed their accounts, placing companies such as Alviero Martini, Giorgio Armani, Dior, and Valentino under court-appointed administration.
These same conditions have been experienced first-hand by the workers of Z Production in Campi Bisenzio (FI), a company that for over a decade produced handbags exclusively for the Montblanc brand.
«Every day, for years, Z Production workers laboured 12 hours a day side by side with an employee from Pelletteria Richemont, who was present in the factory daily to “oversee” and “manage” production. It was only when the workers decided to unionise—and, following a series of strikes, secured an agreement with Z Production to regularise their contracts and reduce working hours to eight hours a day over five days—that things changed. Less than a month later, Richemont terminated the contract, effectively carrying out an anti-union policy and paving the way for the workers’ dismissal, which took place in October 2024 after a year on furlough» explains Francesca Ciuffi of SUDD Cobas.
However, thanks in part to an Al Jazeera investigation, it was revealed that Montblanc production had been "relocated locally"—moved just five kilometres from the original factory to a warehouse full of new, modern-day slaves.
We are talking about supply chains that generate staggering profits. In 2024, the Richemont Group recorded a 4% increase in revenue, reaching €21.4 billion for the period from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.
Last September, on the very same day shareholders collected their dividends—earning in a single day what a Montblanc contract worker would make in 727 years of labour—the workers of Z Production were sleeping in tents outside the company’s offices in Scandicci. They were demanding that those who had profited for years from their exploitation take responsibility for their employment future.
In response, Richemont rejected requests for dialogue from the workers and filed a defamation complaint against the SUDD Cobas union. In relation to the emerging situation, the company has adopted the scarcely credible defence of claiming ignorance of the conditions along its supply chain, as a form of legal protection.
As revealed by Al Jazeera’s investigation, it was Richemont itself that imposed production rates on those further down the chain, through a murky network of contractors and subcontractors. We are talking about €30, €50, €70 per handbag—figures which make it mathematically inevitable that subcontracting companies paid such rates (and still seeking to make a profit of their own) are forced to cut costs. And they don’t cut warehouse rent, electricity or gas bills, or raw materials. The cuts fall squarely on workers’ rights—and on workers themselves.
There can be no legality or safety in the workplace as long as fashion brands impose such rates. The numbers don’t lie.
Brand reputations are safeguarded—not workers’ rights—by the ethical codes published on corporate websites and the so-called system of “audits”. This commercial mechanism is built on private certification agencies, hired directly by the brands themselves to attest to their social responsibility. The conflict of interest is clear, and it offers no real accountability to those employed along the production chains.
On 26 May in Milan, a Memorandum of Understanding on the legality of subcontracting in the fashion supply chain was signed. It introduces a voluntary registration platform for access to “accredited suppliers”. However, it places no obligation on participating brands to actually use these suppliers, nor to implement meaningful transparency or due diligence measures.
«A platform that will not be accessible to the public, who will therefore be unable to exercise any oversight of corporate conduct. The protocol was born in the wake of judicial administrations imposed by the Milan Prosecutor’s Office on luxury brands accused of labour exploitation—an initiative that rightly points the finger at the top of the supply chain, where true responsibility must be sought. But it leaves hanging in the air one deafening question: what became of all the workers who, for years, were victims of forced labour, exploited with inhumane hours and stripped of their rights? What happened to them once the brands’ supply chains were ‘cleaned up’ through judicial oversight? The legal action brought by the Z Production workers against Richemont aims to lay the foundations for a response other than silence», stated Deborah Lucchetti, national coordinator of the Campagna Abiti Puliti, the Italian branch of the Clean Clothes Campaign global network.
While a settlement agreement was reached with Z Production, today the workers of the same company are taking responsibility for making a step to change this system by taking Richemont to court based on certain allegations that will have to be proven during the trial. This is their truth, born from living within the workings of this supply chain: the brand built this system, sits at its apex, and reaps the greatest profit from it. The brand is aware of and contributes to creating these exploitative conditions.
Precisely for this reason, the brand cannot shirk its responsibility once workers exercise their democratic right to unionise in order to change things, because such behaviour leads one to believe that it does not want to bear the costs of proper labour, which it should guarantee through fair pricing to suppliers.
The brand can and must not only repair the injustice it has caused but also foster a genuine process of worker unionisation. This is its ethical and social responsibility. Richemont must reintegrate the Z Production workers into the Montblanc supply chains, so that those same bags can continue to be produced with respect for workers’ rights.
This is the workers’ demand.
«Not for us, but for everyone»: if David manages to win against Goliath, it will be a first, hugely important precedent to rewrite the rules of the Made in Italy supply chains, which could change the lives of thousands of exploited workers.
A starting point towards establishing a social clause in the fashion supply chains, protecting workers in the event of a change of contract.
Then, the Z Production workers will be able to say that their dismissal served a “just cause.”
This is a press release by CCC Italy/Campagna Abiti Puliti and Sudd Cobas.