Is your “business ensemble” still lacking that “sophisticated note”? If so, the “Sartorial thin document case” from Montblanc might be the right choice for you – provided that you’re not put off by the price tag of CHF 1350, being more interested instead in the finer aspects of this accessory. According to the description presented by the Montblanc online shop: “Key details include handles shaped to honor the beauty of handwriting, as well as the Montblanc emblem in a new larger size.”

The hefty price suggests that customers are getting a product for their money that they can carry not only with pride, but also with a clear conscience. After all, this bag is a product of the traditional Hamburg-based brand Montblanc, “Made in Italy”, specifically in Florence, the traditional major centre for leather craftsmanship. Montblanc is a brand or “Maison”, as it is known in the jargon of Richemont, the second largest luxury group in the world. This group is headquartered in Bellevue near Geneva, and in 2023/24 it generated sales of $22.4 billion with a profit of $2.6 billion. Business is booming: in January 2025, the Swiss group announced the best quarterly result in its history. According to its own statements, however, the group is committed not only to making a profit, but also to complying with laws and human rights – including in its suppliers’ companies. At least, that’s what it says in the “Code of Conduct for Suppliers” available on the group’s website.

Tristesse in the “Star Department”

Does this mean then that it’s a privilege not only to be able to afford leather bags from Richemont, but also to be involved in their manufacture? This is not the experience that Muhammad Arslan and Hassan Ali have had when they describe conditions that anyone would hardly think possible in the middle of Europe. We are talking with the two former work colleagues, both 27, from Pakistan, at a large table in the office of the local trade union Sudd Cobas in the centre of Prato, Tuscany’s second-largest city, about 10 kilometres from Florence. Until they were laid off, Arslan and Ali worked at Z Production, a Richemont supplier under Chinese ownership and management – like many of the thousands of textile and leather goods factories in the region. 

A total of around 70 staff were employed in the factory, which also houses a sub-contractor called Eurotaglio – that, according to the Sudd Cobas union, is largely incorporated into Z Production and seems to belong to the same owner. Most of the workers came from Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. According to workers and the union, they only produced leather goods for Montblanc. Arslan and Ali worked in the department known internally as the “Star Department”, where the extra-large Montblanc emblems mentioned above were stamped on the bags.

“Part-time apprentice” in the factory

Like thousands of other migrant workers, Arslan and Ali came to Tuscany to earn a livelihood for themselves and their families back in their own country. In the region’s leather factories, margins generated by production are very tight. Public Eye was able to see official documents relating to the “Pelletteria Serena” case (see below), obtained by Italian RAI journalist Cecilia Bacci. Those documents indicate that the Chloé brand, which also belongs to Richemont, pays around €200 to €300 to make a luxury bag that costs €1500 or more in the shops. Materials account for the lion’s share of the costs. Factories can charge just €50 to €70 for the production of a bag – in the case of the “Sartorial thin document case” from Montblanc, production costs are estimated to account for just around 5 percent of the sales price. Richemont did not comment on the price calculations.

Muhammad Arslan showed us his employment contract at Z Production, dated 12^th July 2019. At that time, he had already been employed in the factory for about two years, and due to the company changing name – a common practice in Italy when companies run into problems with the authorities – he was given a new contract. It stated that he was employed as a “part-time apprentice” for a limited period of three years. The working hours were indicated in a table: Monday to Friday, from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m., 30 hours a week. 

The reality was different, Arslan explains: “We had to work until eight o’clock in the evening, twelve hours a day, with just a half-hour break. And six days a week into the bargain. We couldn’t take any holidays either.” For the additional hours, he received a few hundred euros in cash, but he also had some of this deducted again, so that he ended up with a total of €900 to €1000 per month, i.e. around 3 euros per hour. Arslan continued: “Life consisted of work only. When you’re spending so many hours in the factory, you don’t even have time to go shopping or wash your clothes.”

Roof occupations and smoke flares

In the Summer of 2022, Arslan, Ali and eleven other colleagues in their department decided to fight back. They heard from other workers in their accommodation that there was a recently formed union that was involved in taking on cases like theirs. On 31st August, they rang the bell at the glass door of Sudd Cobas’ office. This union has been active in the Prato area since 2018 and currently has around 600 members from a wide range of industries. It is organized on a grassroots basis. Its actions cause a stir, taking the form of pickets, protests outside the headquarters of the regional government and in front of or, at times, on the roof of factories, tent camps set up in front of shops, with chanting, banners and smoke flares. Sudd Cobas favours a style of protest that people in the region were not used to seeing from the established trade unions. As a result, activists are making themselves vulnerable, including in the literal sense: pickets have already been attacked with batons. But their actions have exerted pressure and were repeatedly successful.

“People are getting their lives back”

They called their efforts to achieve normal working conditions the “8 x 5” campaign. Francesca Ciuffi is an “organizer” at Sudd Cobas and employee delegate for her employer, a publishing house in Florence. Thanks to her great commitment, she is one of the prominent faces of the union, along with fellow coordinators Luca Toscano and Sarah Caudiero. Francesca told us that the idea for the campaign occurred to her at the end of 2020 when they realized that the same conditions applied wherever they unionized workers: “Everyone could quickly identify with it.” The campaign reflected what Sudd Cobas stood for:

“People are getting their lives back: they learn Italian to become more independent, they can meet with friends and also find a sense of solidarity in the union.” 

In the early days, their meetings took place at 10 o’clock in the evening, according to Ciuffi, because the workers didn’t finish work until then. “That’s no longer the case – we now have many members who work normal hours.” The campaign also represents a special feature of Sudd Cobas, as she explains:

“While the major unions focus on helping workers to receive compensation payments after the fact, our actions are aimed at changing working conditions and guaranteeing workers continued employment.”

Strikes with consequences

The 13 Pakistani workers from Z Production and the sub-contractor Eurotaglio joined the union soon after their first visit to the office. After several meetings, they decided to go on an “overtime strike”. In other words, from then onwards they would do what was written in their employment contracts and prescribed by law: they would stop work after completing their regular working hours and not turn up at weekends. This was accompanied by an e-mail drafted and sent by the union to the head of Z Production demanding that the 13 workers should be employed in accordance with the law and compensated for hours worked and not paid.

The pressure had an immediate effect. The price that Richemont paid Z Production was apparently so marginal that even discounting the overtime for 13 workers meant that the company could no longer meet the agreed volumes and deliver at the agreed price – at least this was the complaint made by the factory owner to union activists according to Francesca Ciuffi.

Regular working hours, but no more work 

Both parties got round the table for discussions, which were successful. On 9th February 2023, Muhammad Arslam, Hassan Ali and their eleven colleagues signed an agreement with Z Production/Eurotaglio. It was agreed not to disclose the details. However, what it meant in practice was that the 13 workers would no longer be required to work more than the legal maximum and they would be able to enjoy their entitlement to holidays and sick leave. “The salary was also good,” says Arslan, “around €1500 euro a month.”

So, all’s well that ends well? 

Not quite. A few weeks later, the boss of Z Production announced – along with a large part of the workforce – that they no longer had any work for them. Pelletteria Richemont (Richemont Leather Goods), the group’s local subsidiary in Scandicci near Florence, had slashed production volumes and informed the company on 28th February that it would be terminating its contract with Z Production at the end of the year.

Richemont justified this in a statement to Public Eye and the network Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) by saying that Z Production had repeatedly failed to comply with Richemont's Code of Conduct for Suppliers. According to the group this decision was made “following persistent incidents of non-compliance resulting in an irredeemable loss of trust in the management’s willingness to comply (…) The discovery of an undeclared subcontractor during Deloitte’s forensic audit in January and February 2023 served as the breaking point (…).”

Other violations identified in nine audits, carried out by independent companies between November 2019 and February 2023, were cited by Richemont in its statement as violations of ”health and safety protocols (namely fire prevention measures), the lack  of a functioning electronic working time recording system and important documentation (including a employment contract, a residence permit, and a missing residence permit).” When asked about labour rights violations, Richemont stated that the repeated occurrence of violations such as the lack of a time recording system had ”aroused suspicion”, but that all these audits “did not uncover definitive evidence of poor working conditions, as alleged by former Z Production employees.” The company declined a request to share the audit documents.

Did Richemont know nothing?

For Richemont, the assertion that the unionisation or the agreement of 9 February caused the termination of the contract is “inaccurate”. They state that they were only contacted by Sudd Cobas on 31 March 2023 and had not known anything until then. But Francesca Ciuffi considers it simply “impossible” that Z Production's client did not learn about the entire process until the end of March. She refers to the overtime strike with its ramifications for production as described above. Furthermore: “We know that, from the start, an employee from Pelletteria Richemont was present in the factory almost every day.” 

Regarding this employee that everyone called “Alessandro”, Arslan says: “He gave the factory manager specific tasks for production and sometimes he also gave direct instructions to individual workers.” Public Eye was able to speak independently of Sudd Cobas to an Italian haulage worker, who was employed at that time on normal terms and conditions at Z Production; he also confirms the regular presence of the Pelletteria Richemont employee “Alessandro” at the factory. Francesca Ciuffi says she met him several times during protests outside the factory. Richemont did not comment on this topic.

Negotiations broken off shortly before agreement

In the wake of the downturn in production and termination of contract in Spring 2023, Sudd Cobas organized fresh protest actions outside the factory together with the workers. This time, they took the protests from the start of the production chain to its end: to outside the Montblanc boutique in the chic Via de’ Tornabuoni in the heart of Florence. After this manifestation, several rounds of discussions were held involving all the stakeholders, which resulted in a large proportion of the orders initially being given back to Z Production about a month later. 

In addition, representatives of Sudd Cobas were negotiating with Pelletteria Richemont with the aim of ensuring that the unionized workers could continue to be employed on the same terms by the new supplier following termination of the contract with Z Production. Francesca Ciuffi adds: “Richemont had shown that it was willing to reach such an agreement during the negotiations. We then drafted a written proposal. But when it came to discussing and signing it, they suddenly withdrew.” The union subsequently tried on a number of occasions to resume negotiations – to no avail, until today.

In its statement to Public Eye, Richemont does not address the reasons for their withdrawal from negotiations. They merely point out that they gave notice of termination of the contract with Z Production earlier than required by law and thus gave the company enough time to find new clients. Furthermore, Richemont rejects any responsibility for the fate of the workers: “suppliers are autonomous businesses and (…) it is entirely up to them to decide whom to hire or, indeed, make redundant should they decide to.”

“Made in Italy? Shame in Italy!”

In September 2023, Montblanc’s order volume at Z Production would again plummet. In October, the entire ‘Star Department’ is closed. After the production contract with Richemont expired at the end of the year, the company continued to work for other brands with low production volumes and a small number of workers. Sudd Cobas negotiated a “solidarity” contract with the regional government “Regione Toscana”, guaranteeing the affected workers a certain amount of working hours and the payment of a portion of their wages.

Again in 2024, the union would continue to cooperate with the workers in keeping up the pressure through protest actions. When the solidarity contract expired in October 2024, all unionized workers were dismissed. Sudd Cobas joined forces with other unions and members of the international network Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) – of which Public Eye is a member – to stage an international day of protest with demonstrations outside Montblanc stores in various Italian cities, as well as in Berlin, Lyon, Zurich, Geneva and Basel. They shouted “Made in Italy? – Shame in Italy!”.

Montblanc demands ban on demonstrations

The protests were attracting attention, including from the media – apparently too much for Montblanc’s liking. In January 2025, Sudd Cobas found out that the company was taking legal action against it. The luxury brand instituted proceedings at a local civil court, calling for an immediate ban on demonstrations by Sudd Cobas activists outside its stores. Francesca Ciuffi was outraged. She claimed:

“This petition is absolutely unconstitutional. Since the 1970s no private entity has ever tried to achieve anything similar in Italy. It demands that the right to make profits be given precedence over the right to demonstrate!”

At the same time, Montblanc sued the three Sudd Cobas officials Francesca Ciuffi, Sarah Caudiero and Luca Toscano for defamation and coercion. As can be seen from the complaint they lodged, Montblanc was bothered about being associated with the conditions in the supplier’s factory. Coercion is a criminal offence that is typically invoked in the case of strikes in Italy.

Montblanc withdrew its demand for a ban on demonstrations after Abiti Puliti, the Italian branch of CCC, launched a public appeal on 29th January. However, the company was still intent on bringing the criminal charges against the Sudd Cobas officials. In its statement to Public Eye, Richemont claims that “these individuals in particular have and continue to wage a slander campaign against Montblanc, based on testimonies from a very small number of former workers” who are “using the termination of the business relation with Z Producton as a means of damaging Montblanc’s reputation both in Italy and internationally.»

The fact that a Richemont company was filing criminal charges against the people standing up for the rights of workers – who have been exploited for years in the manufacture of their products – instead of supporting them does not sit well with the image of a socially responsible company. It would also have been expected, after the grievances at Z Production had become known, to focus particular attention on ensuring that new contractors complied with the code of conduct. It is difficult to check whether this was being done, because Montblanc did not reveal the identity of its suppliers. And Sudd Cobas did not receive any information from Richemont when asked where production was relocated to.

Workers from China preferred

In November 2024, reporters from Al Jazeera revealed the well-kept secret in a report, at least partially. They uncovered it by chance. Passing themselves off as Chinese investors, they visited the Chinese leather goods factory Pelletteria A&S, about five kilometres from the Z Production site, in June 2024. The company’s boss, who introduced herself as “Sofia”, candidly explained to the pretend businesspeople her system, which allowed her to carry out production at low cost. She issued her workers with contracts for four hours of work per day, while they really worked 11-12 hours. She would agree a rate with them and pay them privately, so that she could save on insurance premiums. 

The camera crew also documented the lack of safety precautions – and even witnessed a near-accident when a worker slipped unprotected on a grinding machine. She said she sacked her workers from Bangladesh, because they had been filing complaints about the working conditions. She would now only hire Chinese workers, who were more obedient and would never behave in this way. When confronted afterwards, “Sofia” replied, according to Al Jazeera, that her factory was now closed and she denied all allegations.

When the journalist showed Francesca Ciuffi and Luca Toscano from Sudd Cobas her footage from the factory, they were amazed: the Montblanc star was clearly visible on leather bags. The factory boss said into the camera that the brand was a new customer of hers. It remains to be seen where and under what circumstances Richemont will now allow production to take place in other factories. However, based on the recorded footage from June 2024 and the statements made by the factory owner in it, a new factory has evidently received orders for the production of Montblanc leather bags through a sub-contractor, where, once again, labour rights – and the Richemont Code of Conduct – have been blatantly flouted.

Same practices followed as in the fast-fashion industry

To put it mildly, Richemont must have been aware from the outset that there was a high risk of labour laws being breached at its supplier Z Production – and it should have therefore looked more closely into this. This is because exploitative working conditions, such as those experienced by Arslan and Ali, are widespread particularly in the textile and leather goods industry in Italy. The Prato-Florence region is a Europe-wide production centre for these sectors. If you talk to locals in Prato about it, you quickly realize that the public are widely aware of this issue.

A report produced by Abiti Puliti on the luxury and fashion industry in Italy from 2014 already highlighted the practice widespread in factories in Tuscany and elsewhere, whereby workers on part-time apprenticeship contracts were actually working full-time hours without being properly remunerated for it. Co-author Deborah Lucchetti was also involved in a CCC study from 2023 about the fast-fashion industry in Europe. She says: “During our research, we found that the same practices are used in the luxury industry that are common in the fast-fashion industry.” Lucchetti describes them as follows: “Suppliers are pressured into breaching laws and collective agreements for cost reasons and into hiring sub-contractors because they don’t receive enough money to cover all the costs – starting with labour and safety costs. And this happens despite the exorbitant sales prices of the luxury products. This is exactly what we see going on in Montblanc’s case.”

Beatings at work

Richemont must have known as early as 2020 that exploitative conditions had also been prevalent in its supply chain. This was the time when court proceedings were brought against the married couple managing a factory called “Pelletteria Serena”, whose range of products included leather bags from the Richemont brand Chloé. This case caused a stir in Italy when it was revealed that workers had been beaten at the factory. Public Eye was able to view court files. The verdict described serious labour-law violations and conditions that were largely reminiscent of the stories heard from the workers at Z Production: working hours of up to 78 hours per week, “about double and four times what is provided for in the regular full-time and part-time contracts,” an average hourly wage of 3 euros per hour, a daily rest period “limited to short breaks of a few minutes to eat meals”. An Ivorian worker identified by name was also hit several times on the neck and with a belt on the hands after his work had been criticized.

The reasons for the verdict also referred to the vulnerable situation of workers, who “have to work at all costs to secure their income,” which they share with their relatives back home. We spoke to Pakistani workers at a Sudd Cobas picket outside a logistics factory, who said they would send up to 80 percent of their income back to relatives in their home country. 

The manager of the Chinese factory was convicted of labour exploitation and tax evasion. Both, the direct client and Richemont, were not subject to the trial.

Court’s conclusion: “It’s not something sporadic”

In 2024, an unprecedented event occurred in Milan: three sensational trials shining the spotlight on the luxury companies themselves. This included a local subsidiary of the Dior brand, which belongs to the undisputed industry leader LVMH based in Paris, which was placed under court administration because the court found that the company had awarded work to Chinese suppliers that mistreated their workers.

While, in this case too, officials from the supplier companies were prosecuted, Dior faced no criminal proceedings. However, the court found, as Reuters quoted in an article from June 2024, that the brand did not adopt “appropriate measures to check the actual working conditions or the technical capabilities of the contracting companies”. For instance, it had failed to carry out periodic audits over the years. The court concluded that: “It's not something sporadic that concerns single production lots, but a generalized and consolidated manufacturing method.” In addition to the Dior offshoot, Alviero Martini and an Armani offshoot, the two other companies that employed workers under unacceptable conditions, were placed under judicial administration.

According to Luca Toscano of Sudd Cobas, the court’s ruling confirms their experiences: “Luxury brands want to capitalize on the good image of ‘Made in Italy’. That’s why they haven’t shifted production to even cheaper countries in Asia. But what they are doing is bringing the working conditions from China, Pakistan or Bangladesh to Italy to exploit workers here in our country.”

From the Milan court’s perspective, their measure has worked: in late February 2025, it released all three entities from administration prematurely because they had resolved relationships “extremely quickly” with “at-risk suppliers” and developed other measures approved by the court. This all sounds positive, but as Deborah Lucchetti of CCC says: “The exploitation of workers in the garment supply chain is a systemic phenomenon that cannot be resolved simply by terminating business relationships with at-risk suppliers. This would then lead to the most vulnerable workers being left without work or any social protection. It’s the causes of exploitation that need to be eliminated, and these lie primarily in the unfair business practices of brands and corporations. That’s why laws are needed that require companies to respect human rights throughout the supply chain like the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, or as demanded by the Responsible Business Initiative in Switzerland.”

Setting a precedent for the entire region?

Francesca Ciuffi, Luca Toscano and their colleagues at Sudd Cobas nevertheless hope that the court’s ruling will send a signal that will reach as far as Prato and Florence. They have however decided to bring their own action. On behalf of Arslan, Ali and four other former colleagues, Sudd Cobas has challenged the dismissals – not only against Z Production, but also against the Swiss company for which the products have been made: Richemont. The latter still considers the supplier to be fully responsible, as it reiterated in its response to Public Eye's allegations: “Your focus should be on Z Production's persistent non-compliance, rather than on unjustly targeting Montblanc, which acted in good faith to ensure compliance (...).” Z Production did not respond to our request for comment.

If Sudd Cobas ultimately wins and the courts were to find that the group was directly responsible for the conditions at its suppliers, this would mark a great success, setting a precedent for the entire production region of Prato-Florence and beyond. However, the trial is likely to last for years, offering a correspondingly bleak prospect of Muhammad Arslan, Hassan Ali and their colleagues being reinstated soon. They are currently living on state unemployment benefits and are looking for work. This is proving difficult: finding employment under regular conditions seems almost a hopeless task. 

The hope remains that the Swiss company will reflect again on its stated values and ensure that the former Z Production workers no longer have to pay for their employer’s misdemeanours with their jobs and that their wish be fulfilled: to be able to work in the production of their luxury goods again, under conditions that are taken for granted by most people in Italy and elsewhere.