by Karry Schwettmann

“Emma Watson joins Kering’s Board of Directors.”

Emma Watson is not only a Hollywood actress, she’s also known to be a passionate environmental and human rights activist. And when an activist joins forces with a big corporation that is home to brands such as Gucci and Saint Laurent, it’s not everyday news. Looking at the media impact it caused last month it was a proper media coup… and this means, time to look closer!

The question I’m asking, is Emma Watson enabling colorwashing by letting Kering use her face and reputation to convey a green image that is not rooted in corresponding action? Or was it simply a smart move that does reflect Kering’s environmental action?

Let’s find out!

BRAND ACTIVITY

On June 16th, Kering released its decision to appoint Emma Watson the Chair of the Sustainability Committee of the Board of Directors:

François-Henri Pinault, Chairman and CEO of Kering, commented: “Their respective knowledge and competence, the multiplicity of their backgrounds and perspectives will be invaluable additions to the reflections of Kering’s Board of Directors.”

THE CLOSE-UP

To approach the question, it’s helpful to understand the sustainability background of both Emma Watson as an individual and Kering as a corporation. 

First, Watson not only has a track record in activism, she is widely appreciated as a role model who uses her fame and public reach to advance environmental and social causes. As she has put in words: “I feel uncomfortable taking up as much space as I’m taking up and not speaking about [politics and social justice]”. [1]

With regards to environmental advocacy, she is especially vocal in her support of ethical and sustainable fashion. Among other activities, she participated in the Green Carpet Challenge - a campaign for wearing ethical and sustainable fashion on the red carpet - and has been advocating ecofriendly campaigns and initiatives such as the Good On You app. There’s little doubt that she’s truly passionate.

On the other side, there is Kering. The group has made sustainability promises and committed to regularly publish progress reports, including verified data collected by all of their brands. Though a clear figure for the emissions from its suppliers is missing, the list of environmental commitments is long, promoting the group to a leading role in the space ethical luxury fashion. 

But so far, they are mostly just that. Commitments. Kering released its first-ever sustainability progress report during the highly appraised ChangeNow summit which took place in January 2020. Again, Kering understood how to make this step a media-effective announcement. It remains to be seen if Kering is as strong in action as it is strong in communication.

Looking at both sides, it’s a smart move to have Watson on the board and to manifest their pursuit of sustainability loud and clear. I sense the move is also directed at Kering’s luxury fashion rival LVMH, declaring the beginning of a new race in the industry, one that is not only about about relevance and profitability but sustainability. Regardless of the intention, we will hopefully bear witness to a race to the top. 

The key to answering the question is to understand the exact role Watson is taking on. She is the appointed Chair of the Sustainability Committee of the Board of Directors. It’s a role that requires more than just being the “iconic figurehead”. Board directors need to challenge decisions, identify risks, be well-informed and fully engaged with all sustainability-related issues that affect the corporation. [2] The role comes with a lot of responsibility.

I wonder, can Watson provide the time for the role while being an actress and involved in many other roles advocating for social justice movements? Can she provide the expertise and experience that is needed in light of the urgency of the crisis? Is she qualified for the role?

The other interesting question is how Watson is differentiating between her activities as an activist and as a fashion group’s board director. When she holds her next activist speech or gives an interview about a new campaign she supports while wearing a Gucci outfit, is she credible? Is her action authentic?

CONCLUSION

I don’t believe Kering’s decision is a purely professional, impact-driven one. Appointing a celebrity as a board director is not a ground-breaking decision. It does not provide a blueprint for change and inspiration for other companies to tag along.

As such, Kering is prioritizing marketing efforts over systemic change.

I do have doubts. But in this case, I give both the benefit of the doubt. When analyzing specifically the degree of colorwashing, my conclusion is clear: the company does a great marketing job but it does not purposely misleads customers. 

Regarding Watson’s specific tasks as director and her credibility as an activist, I suggest radical transparency. She could disclose her contract with Kering to let the people understand for what purposes which of her expertises come into play. And to avoid guess taking that the contract might require any kind of additional brand advocacy.

KARRY’S COLORWASHING SCORE:

1/10