If you personally find exotic leather use abhorrent, then that’s absolutely fine – no can argue that opinion out of you.
But it is, at then end of the day an opinion, and farming for exotic leathers is a legal practice. Should all ethical controversies be treated as fact rather than opinion? You may think so. But that is, again, another opinion. And wouldn’t it be a fine world if every person aligned with us ethically?
So many luxury wear brands have some exotic or ethically-controversial line. Chanel stopped using exotics … but then you have the whole Nazi informant business. Burberry did too … who were globally criticised for their destruction or unsold goods, and for their animal-derivative sustainability practices. Mulberry also denounced exotics … except they actually still make them in small number. Not terribly transparent or honest of them.
Every fashion brand, from Primark to Hermes is susceptible to ethically controversial, by the very nature of how supply and demand and mass production works.
Some people draw the line at unfair labour, others at any animal derivatives, others at palm oil, others at crocodile farms.
Do rich people have less excuse to be ethically uneducated? Absolutely. Do rich people have to prescribe to your own personal ethical structures? Absolutely not.
And then we have all the people in the middle. Who, yes, will fall into both brackets of ‘can’t afford an Hermes’ but ‘middle class privilege educated and fair earning’ – and those are the people still actively, and knowingly, consuming KitKats and Toyotas and Apple and possibly even a cheeky Chanel.
Where oh where does it end?