Boston Consulting Group has reworked its estimate of the what the impact of COVID-19 will be for luxury goods sales, upping its initial figures of $32 to $43 billion in lost sales for 2020 to $85 and $120 billion for the year. The global management consulting firm further projects that taken together, the fashion and luxury sectors, will be down by between $450 and $600 billion in sales, as brands and retailers are being hit by upended supply chains and drastically slashed consumer spending. 

Such projected damage to brands’ bottom lines and to the fashion and luxury markets, as a whole, poses a challenge that is “even greater than the 2008 recession,” investment research and management consultancy Bernstein revealed recently, stating that the first half of 2020 is “likely going to be the worst in the history of the modern luxury goods industry.”

While Boston Consulting Group asserts that the projected 29 percent drop in sales in the luxury segment “is also a bigger drop than the one suffered by the industry during the 2008 recession,” BCG’s global sector leader for fashion and luxury Javier Seara told Vogue Business that there are some key differences between the 2008 recession and the COVID-19 pandemic that are worthy of attention. 

“The previous recession was not a consumer crisis, but a financial crisis,” Seara says, noting that “what we are living through right now is more deeply and drastically on a human dimension, it has to do with existential anxiety more than financial anxiety.” This means that while the 2008 recession “spared a large part of the wealthier class, wreaking havoc on the middle and lower classes,” Coronavirus is “denting consumer confidence at every income bracket.” 

The pandemic “has caused a financial shock that has hurt consumer sentiment and demand [across the board],” Sarah Willersdorf, who is the head of luxury at BCG, told the Financial Times. “To this you have this added uncertainty in the market about the crisis, disruptions to manufacturing, and prolonged store closures which you didn’t have in 2008.” In terms of store closures, alone, BCG says that brands’ revenues are expected to drop between 25 percent and 35 percent this year as a direct result. 

“Some regions will be more heavily affected than others, depending on the strength of their economies, the severity of outbreaks, and how much they rely on tourist sales for fashion and luxury sales,” the group said, pointing to a whopping 85 percent drop in “industry sales” in China in the span of two months, and sales in countries like Italy, France and Spain, which have fallen as much as 95 percent. 

Meanwhile, in China, which appears to be emerging from the depths of the pandemic, “Customers are already going back to shopping; we see a fast recovery of the willingness to buy and of the Chinese consumer confidence,” says Federica Levato, partner at Bain & Company, which expects the luxury goods market will shrink between 15 and 35 percents this year, per Bloomberg.

As for southern Europe and the U.S., the turnaround is not expected to be so swift. “BCG sees China recovering faster and more positively than all other regions, reaching a 5 to 10 percent decline in sales in December compared to the 15 to 20 percent decline expected in southern Europe,” according to Vogue Business. Meanwhile, for the U.S., in a best-case situation, retail sales are expected to be down by “at least 10 percent” in December 2020, compared to sales in December 2019 per BCG, but even then, Bain asserts that renewed demand in 2020 “won’t make up for the missed sales at the start of the year,” meaning that “the pandemic’s impact will probably stretch into 2021.”

Christian Dior, Chanel, Gucci, Givenchy and Prada are among some of the most well-known names temporarily pivoting away from making (some of their) high fashion garments and revenue-boosting fragrances in order to manufacture hand sanitizers and face masks, as shortages continue to plague medical professionals and other individuals across the globe. These luxury brands are not the only ones whose factories are churning out relatively out of the ordinary products in light of the continued spread of COVID-19, though. Counterfeiters are working overtime in response to the sweeping health pandemic, as well. 

In response to a spike in demand for protective masks as the COVID-19 virus continues to impact individuals on a worldwide basis, claiming tens of thousands of lives in the process, “hundreds of thousands of counterfeit medical masks are being peddled,” and such fake masks are being made “in unsterile sweatshops previously used to make phony handbags or designer jeans.” According to a lengthy report from the Independent, counterfeit-manufacturers are looking to bank on rising need for surgical and high-tech respirator masks and the large-scale shortage of them by saturating the market with black market alternatives that look a whole lot like the real thing.

From manufacturing products and even packaging that bears the counterfeit trademarks of “well-known medical supply companies” like Minnesota-based conglomerate 3M to carefully mimicking the certification stamps and documents that commonly come with these goods (such as the “CE” stamp that indicates that the mask is “approved by the European Economic Area for safety, health, and environmental protection standards”), these unauthorized products look perfectly legitimate. However, recent seizures by law enforcement agencies tell a different story: the global market is rife with counterfeit masks.

The Independent’s Borzou Daragahi reports that the “fake masks may pose a threat to the wellbeing of [their wearers] because they are not made with the correct materials or in sterile environments.” Unlike their authentic counterparts, counterfeit alternatives are not being made from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health-approved textiles used by 3M, which are precisely what enable its respirator masks to boast a “95 percent or greater filtration efficiency” against solid and liquid particles, such as the ones that transmit the COVID-19 virus. 

So, while many of these batches of counterfeit masks may be coming from factories formerly used to make fake Dior handbags or imitation Gucci sneakers, the stakes are quite a bit higher when it comes to counterfeit face masks, which is why law enforcement agencies say they are focused in cracking down on the marked proliferation of such products. 

In a release dated March 11, Interpol revealed that counterfeit facemasks, substandard hand sanitizers and unauthorized antiviral medications were all seized under Operation Pangea XIII, an Interpol-led effort that saw “police, customs and health regulatory authorities from 90 countries take part in collective action against the illicit online sale of various medicines and medical products.” The Lyon, France-based organization stated that it had seized “more than 34,000 counterfeit and substandard masks,” among other products, and warned that this is merely “the tip of the iceberg for this new trend in counterfeiting.”

More recently, Turkish police seized 1 million masks and arrested five people in a raid last week on a sweatshop making unauthorized medical supplies in Istanbul, a move that comes on the heels of Chinese officials disposing of more than $1 million worth of substandard masks that had been imported from Turky, which boasts a $2 billion medical supply manufacturing sector. 

All the while, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has been on high alert after its agents intercepted shipments at Los Angeles International Airport and at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport in March containing counterfeit COVID-19 test kits, which had been shipped from the United Kingdom. Both U.S. Customs and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have issued warnings that the health care products, in particular, are at an increased potential for fraudulent activity in light of the global health pandemic.

As Jay Kennedy, an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University, wrote earlier this month, “Counterfeiters have long preyed upon consumer vulnerability in order to make a quick profit, and the current coronavirus crisis will likely be no different, except instead of the usual names – such as Louis Vuitton, Nike and Rolex – being among the hardest hit by counterfeiters, the primary targets will likely be 3M and other medical goods suppliers. 

Amid the turmoil that is the current retail market as a result of the spread of the COVID-19 virus across the globe, Everlane is not faring well. The nearly 10-year old brand celebrated for its affordable “modern essentials” and “radically transparent” approach to the apparel market is coming under fire for its allegedly less-than-transparent approach to the widespread layoffs it enacted last week, and in connection with what U.S. Senator and 2020 Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has called “morally unacceptable … union-busting.” 

The San Francisco-based startup – which surpassed $100 million in revenue in 2016, “doubled sales annually for the past three years,” Fast Co. reported in 2018 (as of the same year, the company said it was profitable), and become one of the poster-children of the direct-to-consumer retail revolution in the process – made headlines last week when it laid off 180 part-time retail employees and 42 members of its remote “customer experience” staff, and temporarily “furloughed” 68 full-time retail employees. 

The Everlane job cuts are some of the latest in a larger movement in retail, which has seen no small number of companies slash their staffs, as cities, such as New York and San Francisco, put formal halts to all “non-essential” business operations in place, thereby, forcing companies to temporarily close their brick-and-mortar operations, and let go of staff. Such large-scale closures across industries, including retail, have prompted the unemployment rate in the U.S. to soar to 3.3 million, the highest it has been since 1982.

While “many [companies are] saying they will continue to pay employees even while they are closed, most small businesses do not have the financial buffer to pay workers for long if revenue dries up,” the New York Times reported earlier this month, and it seems that Everlane is firmly in this camp. Faced with a “significant impact” to its “total business,” and without a “cash balance” to bank on, the company – whose “transparently priced” garments and accessories have found fans in Angelina Jolie, supermodel Karlie Kloss, and Meghan Markle, among others – revealed that it had “to eliminate all part-time associates across the board.” 

The mounting layoffs in the retail space can be attributed to “simple math,” Deborah Weinswig, founder of Coresight Research, an advisory and research firm that specializes in retail and technology, told the Times. “You can’t have all expenses and no revenue.” But Everlane’s job cuts are raising some eyebrows, nonetheless.

According to a report from Vice, the fashion brand’s move to cut nearly 200 people from its workforce is striking because it impacts a large percentage of a certain group of the company’s workforce: “a remote [group of] ‘customer experience’ workers who [were] in the midst of unionizing” at the time of the layoffs. As Vice reported on Friday, “nearly all” of the members of the burgeoning Everlane union – “42 of the 57 members” – were laid off just days after having “asked the company for [union] recognition.” 

A representative for the group of the “remote [customer experience] team,” which is seeking unionization, told TFL that the union sent an email to Everlane’s CEO Michael Preysman, the company’s Human Resources department and its Director of Customer Experience on March 23, asking for recognition of the union.

“The remote customer experience team at Everlane is officially asking for voluntary recognition of our union,” the email read, according to the union rep, with the latest push coming on the basis of “the unfolding COVID-19 crisis.” The email further asserted that “at a time of such unprecedented uncertainty, it’s crucial to preserve a team whose work saves Everlane hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, builds customer faith in our values, and creates meaningful moments that draw customers back to our brand.” The group claims that they “did not receive a response to [their] request for recognition.” 

Four days later, Everlane reportedly enacted its layoffs, and the union says that most of its members were let go.

While an argument could be made that the timing of the union recognition letter and the layoffs is little more than an unfortunate coincidence, particularly given that the layoffs were not exclusively limited to union-affiliated individuals and that 15 people from the customer experience team were “retained and will reportedly be made full-time,” per Vice, members of Everlane Union allege otherwise. Everlane is “using this pandemic as an excuse to gut our movement,” the union claims, citing mixed messaging from the company’s executives in the day leading up to the firings, pointing to a screenshot of Preysman “claiming in an Instagram comment that Everlane’s business has ground to a halt” and contrasting that with “an email [that was sent to Everlane] staff earlier that week boasting that online sales have increased.” 

According to Vice, the layoffs came just days after Everlane management “sent an email to staffers assuring them the company was ‘stronger than ever’ during the coronavirus pandemic,” and that the company’s “on-line business has been surprisingly solid.” The publication cited “a memo sent to staffers from a management team member,” which revealed that “the first week of Give Back to the Customer [promotion] generated sales that were +4% [compared to] the pre-crisis forecast, and +32% [compared to] the week prior.”

Meanwhile, a number of the company’s employees told Vice that “they’d been told repeatedly by management in recent days that the business was fundamentally sound and that there was no need for panic,” only to have layoffs ensure shortly thereafter.

Far from merely fading into the frenzied COVID-19 news cycle, the budding union’s message was amplified over the weekend when Senator Bernie Sanders called attention to their cause and tweeted, “Using this health and economic crisis to union bust is morally unacceptable. I’m calling on Everlane to bring workers back on payroll and recognize the Everlane Union.” 

In response to Sanders’ tweet, Everlane provided a comment from Pressman, who says he is cutting his salary to zero “during this time.” According to the company’s CEO, the layoffs, which he describes as “the most difficult decision I have ever made as a leader, are “not about the union.”

“There are more captive tigers in the U.S. than there are in the wild throughout the world,” the narrator of a viral, new Netflix series states. At the peak of his success, Joseph Maldonado-Passage – aka “Joe Exotic” – had nearly 100 of the world’s 3,890 tigers. “Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness,” a 7-part “true murder-for-hire story” that no small number of viewers are calling “the craziest thing they have ever seen,” follows the flamboyant Maldonado-Passage in his role as the former proprietor of a private Oklahoma zoo – which was home to some 50 species of animals, including 200 big cats, such as tigers, lions, and puma – and a corresponding traveling magic show.

As the show’s official synopsis puts it, “Things take a dark turn” for Maldonado-Passage, who describes himself as a “gay, gun-carrying redneck with a mullet,” and his big cat empire “when Carole Baskin, an animal activist and owner of [the Tampa, Florida-based Big Cat Rescue sanctuary], threatens to put [him] out of business.”

As the series reveals, the decades-long feud between Maldonado-Passage and Baskin was born from Baskin’s efforts to put a stop to Maldonado-Passage’s Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Memorial Park, a private zoo that Maldonado-Passage built on a sweeping parcel of land in rural Oklahoma. According to Baskin, Maldonado-Passage’s “dirty” venture and his “band of big cat abusers”  sought to “profit and reap pecuniary gain from exotic animals,” while engaging in egregious acts of “exploitation” and “abuse” of the animals. 

In furtherance of her quest to get the G.W. Exotic Animal Park to stop its “incessant breeding of exotic cats,” and put an end to the “deplorable conditions” in which the animals were kept, Baskin “went to great lengths in an attempt to put Joe Exotic out of business, including asking her broad online fanbase to send mass emails to venues where he took his animal tours, asking them to stop hosting his shows,” according to Time.

Maldonado-Passage did merely not sit by while Baskin “willfully and maliciously” attempted to “injure [his] character and reputation” and the reputation of his zoo and traveling magic show. He retaliated by posting a string of videos harassing and threatening violence against Baskin. “He started filming videos in which he read aloud copies of Baskin’s diary, which he had acquired after one of her former employees stole it, and posted them online,” per Time. “He suggested that Baskin’s diary entries showed that she’d killed her former husband [who mysteriously disappeared in 1997], and [so, he] began a campaign to get her arrested for his death.”

The videos would, of course, prove to be small change compared to what Maldonado-Passage had in store for his rival. In 2016, he (unsuccessful) hatched a plan to hire hit men to kill Baskin on two separate occasions. When his initial hit man ended up running off with the $3,000 that he was paid him in November 2017, Maldonado-Passage attempted – again, unsuccessfully – to have Baskin killed by another hitman. This time, the hitman was an uncover FBI agent, which ultimately resulted in his arrest by the FBI and his conviction on 21 counts, including two counts of murder-for-hire.

But as several episodes of the highly-watched series indicate, long before Maldonado-Passage concocted his two-time murder-for-hire plot, for which he was sentenced to 22 years in prison in 2019, another fight had been underway between the two parties: a 10-year-long trademark squabble that got its start in 2010 when Maldonado-Passage decided – as part of his revenge plot against Baskin – to rename his Wynnewood, Oklahoma-based zoo to mirror that of her exotic cat-centric, non-profit organization.

According to the complaint that it filed against Maldonado-Passage and co. (“the defendants”) in a Florida federal court in January 2011, Baskin’s Big Cat Rescue Corp. (“BCR”) claimed that it had been using the BCR name in connection with its sanctuary and animal abuse-centric public awareness campaigns since 2003, and maintains federal trademark registrations for the name. 

Nonetheless, BCR claims that in early 2010, the defendants “conceived of a plan to harm the credibility and goodwill of BCR by causing public confusion through the adoption of a misleading and confusing name, Big Cat Rescue Entertainment.” More than merely adopting a confusingly similar name and using similar imagery to promote their “commercial exhibits” of exotic animals, BCR claims that the defendants “engaged in a counter-campaign of disinformation, misinformation and disparagement seeking to deflect [BCR’s] criticism of their exploitative exhibition of exotic animals by attempting to diminish the credibility and goodwill of BCR.” 

In fact, BCR claimed in its complaint that Maldonado-Passage, who also went by the last name Schreibvogel, “boasted on Facebook that he ‘registered the Big Cat Entertainment’ name so BCR ‘could ruin’ its goodwill ‘on Google all by [itself], and it is working.’”

With the forgoing in mind, BCR set out claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition, asserting that consumers were likely to confuse the two companies, which was causing it to suffer “irreparable damages.” In addition to monetary damages, BCR asked the court to order the defendants to immediately and permanently refrain from engaging in further infringement.

The lawsuits did not stop there, though. Eight months later, in September 2012, BCR filed a second suit against Maldonado-Passage (who is listed as Joseph Schreibvogel in the complaint) and Big Cat Rescue Entertainment, among other related defendants. This time, BCR cited claims of copyright infringement and misrepresentation, arguing that in August 2011, the defendants had posted videos on YouTube featuring BCR’s copyright-protected photos without its permission or consent. In at least one instance, BCR alleged that the defendants used one of her copyright-protected photos along with “the offensive caption, ‘Tame Bunnies Killed & Bled by Order of Carole Baskin to Make Bloodsicles for Her Cats.’” 

A month later, in October 2012, BCR filed a third lawsuit, again lodging claims of copyright infringement and misrepresentation. This time BCR that the defendants had used three of its copyright-protected photos and two videos, including one entitled, “How to Make a Tiger Popsicle,” on the “TheJoeexotic” YouTube page and a Facebook page for “Joe A. Schreibvogel” without permission. Again, BCR sought immediate relief from the defendants’ alleged pattern of infringement and monetary damages to remedy the significant damage that they had been waging upon BCR.

The three cases proceeded to make their way through the litigation process in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a federal court in the humid-and-swampy Tampa, with Maldonado-Passage and the other defendants denying Baskin’s claims and fighting back by way of a host affirmative defenses. In all of the cases, the defendants argued that Baskin’s claims should be barred by the doctrine of unclean hands; they were essentially arguing that Baskin had acted “unethically in relation to the subject of the lawsuit” and thus, should be prevented from reaping any wins in the cases.

In response to Baskin’s trademark infringement claims, the defendants argued that BCR lacks valid rights in the “Big Cat Rescue” mark because it is “a generic term without the capacity to function as a source identifier or achieve secondary meaning,” and “is merely descriptive and cannot be protected because [BCR] has not demonstrated that the mark has acquired secondary meaning or distinctiveness.” 

In addition to lodging defenses to Baskin’s suits, the defendants set forth claims of their own, seeking “damages exceeding $15,000,” among other remedies in connection with BCR’s alleged acts of “libel, slander, and tortious interference with a business relationship.” According to the defendants, BCR made more than 50 allegedly “false statements” about them, including that “Schreibvogel is involved in a ‘dangerous, deadly business,’” that “Schreibvogel operates ‘puppy mills’ whereby [he] ‘churns out dangerous carnivores,’” and that the “animals cared for and sheltered [by the defendants] endure a ‘poor quality of life and lack of care,’” among others. Such statements “were published to third persons, including entities for which [the defendants] had existing business relationships as well as to potential customers,” they argued. 

Fast forward to Friday, February 8, 2013, just over two years after BCR filed its first suit, and within a week, all three of the cases were brought to a close. In the two copyright infringement cases that BCR lodged against Maldonado-Passage and co., the court sided with BCR, and mandated that the defendants permanently refrain from “committing any other act which infringes upon BCR’s copyrights,” and ordered them to pay a total of $75,000 in damages in connection with their infringement.

As for the first case that BCR filed, the trademark infringement matter that served to formally initiate the parties’ legal feud, in a final judgment and permanent injunction dated February 11, the court similarly required that the defendants cease all infringement activity and also refrain from engaging in “any act of unfair competition or deceptive trade practice.” More than that, the court ordered the defendants to pay up $953,000 in compensatory damages and attorney’s fees, while also putting an end to their counterclaims against BCR in furtherance of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. 

While the parties’ intellectual property cases may have been put to bed in early 2013, it would ultimately be revealed that the worst was yet to come just a few years later when Maldonado-Passage hired hit men to try to kill Baskin not once but twice in furtherance of their rivalry, one that, according to Netflix, demonstrates that “the only thing more dangerous than a big cat is its owner.”

Companies across the globe are using their resources to help in a crisis. From New York-based designer Christian Siriano to Italian mega-brand Gucci, fashion and non-fashion entities, alike, are putting their networks of laborers and factories to good use to address the global health pandemic that is COVID-19. In addition to ponying up cash, brands are pivoting their manufacturing capabilities, which is seeing them produce hand sanitizers in the case of Paris-based giant LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton, or constructing thousands of hospital gowns and face masks, which is what Milan-based Prada has committed to doing, while streetwear brand Supreme has been seeking a manufacturer to create masks in the U.S. 

As homemade – and fashion factory-made – masks become something of a budding effort among brands with the manufacturing capabilities and the desire to help stop the spread of this novel virus, America’s Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) has a strong message: not all masks and other personal protection equipment (“PPE”) is created equal. 

In furtherance of that fact, health authorities caution that there are very real requirements that must be adhered to in order for masks to be anywhere near as effective as the standard N95 respirators and surgical masks, which are constructed from specialty materials, and regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), as well as the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. In short: there is a significant difference between “surgical” and “non-surgical masks,” and by law, the labeling of these products must reflect that.

Unlike “surgical gowns and surgical masks” (including “surgical N95 respirators or N95 filtering facepiece respirators” if they are “intended to prevent specific diseases or infections”), which are specifically regulated by federal law in the U.S. and subject to an array of FDA-imposed clearances and premarket requirements as a result, fashion brand-created masks are different.

As the New York Times reported, Christian Siriano, who has “reassigned his 10 seamstresses in New York” to make masks, and Dov Charney, the founder of American Apparel, is using his sprawling Los Angeles-based factory (home of his new brand Los Angeles Apparel) to produce “300,000 masks and 50,000 gowns in a week.” Both Charney and Siriano are designing “their own washable, reusable” masks, which “are not ‘medical grade.'” Although, according to the Times, “Mr. Siriano intends to make masks that meet FDA standards as soon as he can acquire approved materials and patterns, and begin prototyping.”  

It is well understood that “masks must be made with strict [often legally-governed] standards and patterns in mind,” Emily Brayshaw, a professor at the University of Technology in Sydney, asserts, while also observing various labeling guidelines. (The existence of such strict federal regulations when it comes to masks is almost certainly why “designers who are making masks have begun to emphasize that they are ‘non-surgical,'” per GQ). Such standards – which include the use of specific medical-grade textiles and coating technologies that aid in filtration (to ensure that the masks do, in fact, serve to block minuscule airborne particles), and manufacture and storage of the masks in an environment that meets the legally-defined “quality system requirements” – can be difficult to meet. As many of the designers that have set out to make masks and other PPE told GQ, they “now find themselves facing manufacturing quandaries, with some stalled by unclear guidelines and a lack of access to medical-grade fabrics.”

Even if the majority of fashion-made masks are not the same as traditionally utilized by medical professionals, given the overwhelming shortage of masks, the FDA recently revealed that it will observe some slightly more lax rules when it comes to masks. As indicated in a March 2020 release, the government entity stated that during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency, it will “not object to the marketing and distribution of” certain face masks without the usually-required prior-clearance, a move that stands to enable brands that want to help to do so without having to get too far into the weeds from a legal perspective.

In accordance with its temporary new stance, the FDA stated that companies may produce and distribute non-surgical if the product is labeled in the following manner: it may be used when FDA cleared masks are unavailable; it recommends against use in a surgical setting or where significant exposure to liquid bodily or other hazardous fluids may be expected; it makes no claims of antimicrobial or antiviral protection; it makes no claims of infection prevention or reduction; it makes no claims regarding flammability; the labeling contains a list of the body contacting materials; and the mask is not labeled as a “surgical mask”; rather it may be labeled as a “face mask.”

For masks that are labeled as “surgical” and thus, required to meet an array of specialized specifications, including “fluid resistance testing (liquid barrier performance) consistent with ASTM F1862 standard test method,” the FDA has stated that they will also need to include specific labeling, which specifies that the mask “does not include uses for antimicrobial or antiviral, protection or related uses; does not include uses for infection prevention or reduction or related uses; does not make particulate filtration claims; and contains a list of the body contacting materials, which should not include any drugs or biologics.”

As for the efficacy of non-surgical masks when it comes to the spread of COVID-19 or other viruses, the evidence is generally not very promising. “Studies into H1N1 viruses show common fabrics” – as opposed to the technologically-superior ones used to craft N95 and surgical masks – “may provide only marginal protection against virus-containing particles in exhaled breath,” Brayshaw states. A 2015 study that compared the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks bolstered this sentiment after finding that cloth masks stopped just 3 percent of particles, while medical masks stopped 56 percent.

This makes homemade versions “a last resort … in settings where [other] facemasks are not available,” according to the CDC, but a popular resort for fashion brands looking to do good, nonetheless.