Prada’s Kolhapuri controversy highlights fashion’s trust gap

When Prada sent its leather sandals down the Milan Fashion Week runway last year, the designs looked strikingly familiar, especially to anyone who grew up around India’s centuries-old Kolhapuri chappals.

The backlash was immediate. Critics accused the Italian luxury house of cultural appropriation, copying a heritage Indian craft without proper credit, and selling it at a price far removed from the artisans who’ve made Kolhapuri chappals for generations. The sandals sell for about $10 in India, while Prada’s current version is available for $995 on its website.

The controversy appears to echo numerous cultural appropriation scandals involving luxury retailers over the past decade.

In 2019, Dior met with accusations of exploiting Native American culture after debuting a video ad promoting its fragrance, “Sauvage,” that featured Native American dancers and sacred symbolism. The brand responded by deleting the posts and asserting it had consulted with Native American advisors for the campaign.

The same year, Gucci faced backlash after releasing a black turtleneck sweater with a roll-up collar that covered the lower face with what looked like red lips outlined; some critics compared the silhouette to blackface imagery and racist caricatures. In response, Gucci removed the sweater, issued an apology, and launched diversity initiatives, scholarship programs, and appointed a global head of diversity and inclusion.

In April, Prada responded to the criticism by launching a limited-edition “Made in India” sandal collection produced in collaboration with Indian artisans, along with a three-year training program for 180 artisans across the regions of Maharashtra and Karnataka, where the sandals are traditionally made. The initiative includes training in design, product development, branding, and digital skills, with some artisans expected to receive technical experience at the Prada Group Academy in Italy.

Prada does not have any standalone fashion boutiques in India, but has two Prada Beauty stores and sells fashion accessories via authorized retailers. Conversely, Dior operates seven stores in India, including two full-line luxury boutiques (fashion, bags, and accessories) and five specialized Dior Beauty boutiques. And Gucci has four stores in India.

Retail Brew spoke with experts about Prada’s response. (Prada did not respond to Retail Brew’s request for comment.)

dForgive & forget? “They did what they thought would be an appropriate measure in terms of a corporate response,” Ari Lightman, professor of digital media and marketing at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy, told Retail Brew, “but if you don’t apologize to the people that are offended and say that you’re going to try to do better, things ring hollow.”

Sandra Sucher, an economist, author, and professor of management practice at Harvard Business School, however, believes that while the response wasn’t perfect, it puts Prada somewhere between damage control and meaningful repair.

As a scholar who studies how organizations build consumer and shareholder trust, she said the first step in remedying trust is for a brand to take responsibility for their actions, which Prada seemingly did.

“While they didn’t actually say the words [I’m sorry]—which, according to research, would have helped a lot—they did do what they did right,” she said, citing a popular notion in trust research known as the “offer of repair” that follows three integral steps: taking responsibility, figuring out what went wrong, and fashioning a concrete plan to address the problem.

“The commitment to three years of training for 180 artisans…the fact that they will have a limited-edition product, clearly acknowledging where the collaboration has resulted in saleable merchandise—that goes beyond what a lot of other companies do in situations like this,” Sucher said.

While the retailer’s response has been that Prada maintains the sandals are “inspired by” the Indian footwear, many on social media allege they’re copied and then slapped with an exorbitant price tag.

For consumers today, brands are often an extension of their values. So while decades ago, shoppers may have been more forgiving of the lack of acknowledgement or the nuances of “inspired by” versus “copying,” in the current instance, this might have a long-term impact.

“Folks who are the next generation of consumers…might remember what Prada did associated with cultural appropriation and taking a product from a vulnerable group,” Lightman said.

This doesn’t mean all hope is lost. In fact, there is plenty Prada could still do to appeal to customers put off by the response so far, starting with changing the language in the description of the sandals and acknowledging it was a re-creation of the Indian footwear created in collaboration with local artisans, per Sucher.

Ultimately, the lesson for international retailers might be considering a product’s history and inspiration before it hits the runway.

“There’s a reason why people actually believe that diverse teams make better decisions,” Sucher said. “Who’s designing this stuff and who is there? Someone from the Global South just brings a different element of awareness that other people just don't share.”

As for Prada? The collaboration may be a step forward, but as Sucher put it, “Watch this space.”