More information about the LVMH Group can be found on the company’s website.
The LVMH Group is made up of the following fashion brands:
LVMH’s Supplier’s Code of Conduct can be found on the company’s website. It makes the following commitment on wages, but does not go so far as to commit to a living wage:
‘As a minimum, our suppliers shall pay regular wages and pay for overtime at the legal rate imposed by the country of original manufacture and provide their workers with the benefits the law currently requires. If there is no legal minimum wage or overtime pay in the country of origin, the supplier shall ensure that the wages are at least equal to the average minimum in the industrial sector in question and that overtime pay is at least the same as the usual rate of pay. Deductions from wages are not to be made for disciplinary purposes.’
LVMH’s Supplier Code of Conduct states:
‘We require strict compliance with these standards on the part of all our suppliers, their factories, subcontractors, as well as their own suppliers.’
We said to LVMH in an email dated 17 December 2012:
‘Your supplier code of conduct makes commitments on wages but does not explicitly commit to paying workers in your supply chain a “living wage”. Is there a particular reason for this? Has LVMH done any research to assess how much workers in supplier factories (particularly outside the EU) are actually paid and whether their wages could be considered a ‘living wage’ in the countries in question?’
However, LVMH were not willing to provide further information. Their response, in an email dated 20 December 2012, was:
‘Please note that we have sent you the most recent information that we have given externally about supply chain issues. We will use your follow-up questions to consider ways in which we can further improve our reporting on these issues in the future.’
P.16 of LVMH’s 2011 Reference Document indicates that over half their fashion and leather goods are produced in their own factories, and where subcontractors are used, the majority of these are in the European Union, where labour laws are relatively strict and reasonably well-enforced. It states:
‘Generally, the subcontracting used by the business group is diversified in terms of the number of subcontractors and is located primarily in the country of origin of the brand: France, Italy and Spain. Overall, the use of subcontractors for Fashion and Leather Goods operations represented about 45% of the cost of sales in 2011.’
We asked LVMH in an email dated 17 December 2012:
‘Are you able to provide a little more info on this – in particular, roughly what percentage of fashion subcontracting takes place outside France, Italy and Spain?’
We also said to LVMH in the same email:
‘In the interests of transparency, something we are keen to know more about is where exactly goods are being produced. A couple of fashion brands have been leading the way on this, in providing a full list of all their supplier factories. Is this something LVMH would be able to consider doing for its fashion lines?’
However, LVMH were not willing to provide further information. Their response, in an email dated 20 December 2012, was:
‘Please note that we have sent you the most recent information that we have given externally about supply chain issues. We will use your follow-up questions to consider ways in which we can further improve our reporting on these issues in the future.’
We said to LVMH in an email dated 17 December 2012:
‘Your 2011 Reference Document mentions that in 2011, 453 social and/or environmental audits were carried out – are you able to share a little more about your procedures for social audits (e.g. Do in-house staff regularly visit suppliers to carry out checks or audits, how often is each supplier audited as a minimum, are audits unannounced, do audits include confidential interviews with workers selected by the auditor not management, is there a way in which workers in your supply chain can confidentially contact LVMH to raise any issues of concern?)’
However, LVMH were not willing to provide further information. Their response, in an email dated 20 December 2012, was:
‘Please note that we have sent you the most recent information that we have given externally about supply chain issues. We will use your follow-up questions to consider ways in which we can further improve our reporting on these issues in the future.’
We asked them to reconsider whether they could tell us more in an email dated 17 January 2013. Their response, in an email dated 23 January 2013, still did not provide any further information but did suggest that they would be able to share more soon. It said:
‘The information on audits will be updated and published in our 2012 annual report which we are currently preparing.We would be happy to discuss our auditing procedures with you after our results have been announced and you have access to the new information.’
We said to LVMH in an email dated 17 December 2012:
‘Your 2011 Reference Document mentions that in 2011, 453 social and/or environmental audits were carried out – are you able to share a little more about your procedures for social audits (e.g. Do in-house staff regularly visit suppliers to carry out checks or audits, how often is each supplier audited as a minimum, are audits unannounced, do audits include confidential interviews with workers selected by the auditor not management, is there a way in which workers in your supply chain can confidentially contact LVMH to raise any issues of concern?)’
However, LVMH were not willing to provide further information. Their response, in an email dated 20 December 2012, was:
‘Please note that we have sent you the most recent information that we have given externally about supply chain issues. We will use your follow-up questions to consider ways in which we can further improve our reporting on these issues in the future.’
We asked them to reconsider whether they could tell us more in an email dated 17 January 2013. Their response, in an email dated 23 January 2013, still did not provide any further information but did suggest that they would be able to share more soon. It said:
‘The information on audits will be updated and published in our 2012 annual report which we are currently preparing.We would be happy to discuss our auditing procedures with you after our results have been announced and you have access to the new information.’
We said to LVMH in an email dated 17 December 2012:
‘Your 2011 Reference Document mentions that in 2011, 453 social and/or environmental audits were carried out – are you able to share a little more about your procedures for social audits (e.g. Do in-house staff regularly visit suppliers to carry out checks or audits, how often is each supplier audited as a minimum, are audits unannounced, do audits include confidential interviews with workers selected by the auditor not management, is there a way in which workers in your supply chain can confidentially contact LVMH to raise any issues of concern?)’
However, LVMH were not willing to provide further information. Their response, in an email dated 20 December 2012, was:
‘Please note that we have sent you the most recent information that we have given externally about supply chain issues. We will use your follow-up questions to consider ways in which we can further improve our reporting on these issues in the future.’
We asked them to reconsider whether they could tell us more in an email dated 17 January 2013. Their response, in an email dated 23 January 2013, still did not provide any further information but did suggest that they would be able to share more soon. It said:
‘The information on audits will be updated and published in our 2012 annual report which we are currently preparing.We would be happy to discuss our auditing procedures with you after our results have been announced and you have access to the new information.’
We said to LVMH in an email dated 17 December 2012:
‘Your 2011 Reference Document mentions that in 2011, 453 social and/or environmental audits were carried out – are you able to share a little more about your procedures for social audits (e.g. Do in-house staff regularly visit suppliers to carry out checks or audits, how often is each supplier audited as a minimum, are audits unannounced, do audits include confidential interviews with workers selected by the auditor not management, is there a way in which workers in your supply chain can confidentially contact LVMH to raise any issues of concern?)’
However, LVMH were not willing to provide further information. Their response, in an email dated 20 December 2012, was:
‘Please note that we have sent you the most recent information that we have given externally about supply chain issues. We will use your follow-up questions to consider ways in which we can further improve our reporting on these issues in the future.’
We asked them to reconsider whether they could tell us more in an email dated 17 January 2013. Their response, in an email dated 23 January 2013, still did not provide any further information but did suggest that they would be able to share more soon. It said:
‘The information on audits will be updated and published in our 2012 annual report which we are currently preparing.We would be happy to discuss our auditing procedures with you after our results have been announced and you have access to the new information.’
P. 79 of LVMH’s 2011 Reference Document contains a summary of their latest audit results for 2011. It states:
‘In 2011, 453 social and/or environmental audits were carried out, nearly 80% of which by specialized external service providers, at 346 of our suppliers. Among these audits, 380 related exclusively to social criteria. More than one-third of these audits showed results in line with our standards and 38% identified minor non-compliance issues. Audits whose conclusions indicated a need for significant improvement by suppliers or the existence of major non-compliance issues accounted for 21% and 3% of audits performed, respectively. In all, 121 corrective action plans were implemented at our suppliers where audits had identified areas in need of improvement. In addition, some Group companies were prompted to put an end to their existing relationships with suppliers whose social audit findings revealed major issues of non-compliance with our Code of Conduct.
Among developments during the year, the increasing use of preliminary audits (43 performed in 2011) enabled better advance identification of supplier practices, thus leading to the decision to refrain from working with certain potential suppliers. In addition, some Group companies were prompted to put an end to their existing relationships with suppliers whose social audit findings revealed major issues of non-compliance with our Code of Conduct.’
We said to LVMH in an email dated 17 December 2012:
‘Your 2011 Reference Document mentions that in 2011, 453 social and/or environmental audits were carried out – are you able to share a little more about your procedures for social audits (e.g. Do in-house staff regularly visit suppliers to carry out checks or audits, how often is each supplier audited as a minimum, are audits unannounced, do audits include confidential interviews with workers selected by the auditor not management, is there a way in which workers in your supply chain can confidentially contact LVMH to raise any issues of concern?)’
However, LVMH were not willing to provide further information. Their response, in an email dated 20 December 2012, was:
‘Please note that we have sent you the most recent information that we have given externally about supply chain issues. We will use your follow-up questions to consider ways in which we can further improve our reporting on these issues in the future.’
We asked them to reconsider whether they could tell us more in an email dated 17 January 2013. Their response, in an email dated 23 January 2013, still did not provide any further information but did suggest that they would be able to share more soon. It said:
‘The information on audits will be updated and published in our 2012 annual report which we are currently preparing.We would be happy to discuss our auditing procedures with you after our results have been announced and you have access to the new information.’