Browse all

Why did Stella McCartney leave LVMH?

For many, a fateful sign of the times

Why did Stella McCartney leave LVMH? For many, a fateful sign of the times

The announcement, very brief, came last night: Stella McCartney acquires the stake that LVMH held in her eponymous brand, making it fully independent once again. The news is unusual. Certainly, there have been cases where brand founders, after accumulating enough capital, bought out the stakes of other investors to regain full independence. But the only truly striking case of a founder essentially paying to leave an industrial group and make their brand independent again is that of Azzedine Alaia, when he exited the Prada Group more than a decade ago, in 2007. Like Alaia, who maintained ties with the group he left for the production of shoes and bags, McCartney is not expected to sever ties with LVMH but to remain within the group in the somewhat vague role of “global ambassador for sustainability”. But what drove McCartney, especially during a period of global luxury market crisis, to want to leave the logistical and managerial platform of the world’s most important luxury group and face the stormy waters of the market alone? Who would want to step down from the winner's podium? On her social media, Vanessa Friedman wondered whether this move might be «a sign of the Trump era» and it’s hard not to see a connection between the reversal the new U.S. government is making regarding sustainability obligations for companies, Arnault's presence at Trump’s inauguration, and the strict focus Stella McCartney has placed on sustainability in her brand.

Our hypothesis is that, to avoid ideological compromise, both McCartney and LVMH decided to part ways: this way, McCartney can maintain her policies and preserve her freedom of expression, while Arnault has eliminated a potential dissenting voice from within his ranks. In fact, McCartney spoke at the COP28 of the United Nations in December 2023, advocating for changes to tariffs on leather products or non-sustainable materials. If she were to make such comments today, they might have a different resonance with the U.S. government and potentially provoke some kind of retaliation, whether through a social media storm on X/Twitter or threats of new tariffs in America. Of course, what lies between the lines may run deeper than this. For example, it’s impossible not to wonder why LVMH decided to part with an asset, assuming it was indeed generating profits. Here, the hypotheses are twofold. One might think McCartney wanted to dissociate herself from LVMH's aggressive business model and proceed at a more organic pace without interference from a high table. Alternatively, perhaps more imaginatively, the designer might have realized she couldn’t keep up with the price escalation strategy and now wants to see if her products could find success in a more accessible market segment—in which case, McCartney should be commended for her shrewdness.

But perhaps there’s a reason the separation appeared consensual. We might also think that the effects of the luxury consumption crisis are pushing groups like LVMH to concentrate their resources on high-return brands such as Dior and Louis Vuitton, discarding the smaller fish—when the sea is stormy, the first thing to do is throw ballast overboard. In any case, the news was delivered so briefly as to suggest that both parties are trying to wrap up the matter quickly and without too much exposure. Whether it’s a sign of the luxury crisis or a sign of a new direction remains unclear. The only certainty is that, with 2025, we have officially entered a period where increasingly unexpected events may unfold: the more LVMH’s business depends on the U.S. and thus its relationship with Trump, the more the progressive ideologies of fashion and its designers will find themselves at points of conflict and friction. But in a world dominated by PR relations, will fashion and its players know how to—or be able to afford to—speak out loudly?