This episode reveals a contemporary luxury caught between a desire for craftsmanship , the acceleration of trends , and a growing expectation of symbolic and economic justice . For a sandal is never “just” a sandal when it carries a name, a history, a geography, and invisible hands.
Beyond the Prada, the affair acts as a magnifying glass. It shows how a brand can shift from a narrative centered on the object itself to one centered on origin, credit, and shared value. It also questions what it means, concretely, to "value craftsmanship": is it an advertising slogan, or a set of verifiable, contractual commitments compatible with the requirements of a luxury product?
When a sandal becomes a symbol in global fashion
In the Western imagination, sandals are often associated with simplicity, seasonality, and functionality. In traditional craft cultures, however, they can be the opposite: a social marker, an everyday object imbued with codes, and a subtle site of technical innovation. Kolhapuri chappals, traditional sandals associated with the Kolhapur region and, more broadly, Maharashtra, belong to this latter category. Their silhouette is recognizable, their construction demanding, and their patina sought after.
What has become particularly sensitive in recent years is the way the fashion system "absorbs" these forms. Inspiration can be a tribute; it can also be experienced as appropriation. Everything depends on attribution, narrative, and, above all, remuneration. When a design becomes profitable on a global scale, the issue is no longer merely aesthetic: it becomes economic, political, and legal.
What the accusation of cultural appropriation entails
In the luxury sector, cultural appropriation is generally criticized when identifiable elements of a culture, community, or craft are adopted without explicit credit, without shared benefit, and sometimes even by erasing the name of the origin. It is not the influence itself that is contested; it is the asymmetry. A brand with significant media and commercial power transforms a collective heritage into a “signature,” while the original artisans remain out of the picture.
The second part of the criticism concerns attribution. Correctly naming a source is an act of recognition, but also an act of cultural traceability. Saying “inspired by Indian sandals” does not have the same meaning as citing the Kolhapuri chappals and the ecosystem of artisans, tanners, workshops, and local markets that sustain them. In the age of social media, imprecision is perceived as erasure.
Finally, there is the question of compensation : who captures the value? A luxury product, sold at a high price, can hardly justify an opaque supply chain, especially when its artisanal origin is emphasized. The public, as well as luxury consumers, now expect evidence of "sharing": partnerships, working conditions, skills development, and a fair share of the value created.
Why are the Kolhapuri chappals a particularly sensitive subject?
Kolhapuri chappals are not a trend born on a catwalk: they are objects rooted in local customs, seasons, rituals, and economies. They also carry an identity dimension, because they are associated with communities of artisans and a passed-down tradition of craftsmanship. In the world of luxury, which values the hand, time, and precision, this type of object acts as a mirror: it reminds us that craftsmanship is not the exclusive domain of European capitals.
This sensitivity is heightened by a contemporary development: India has established mechanisms for protecting and recognizing certain traditional products, notably through geographical indications. Without delving into excessive technical details, the idea is simple: to associate a product name with its origin and craftsmanship, in order to prevent misuse and better protect a collective value. When an international company approaches such a symbol, the landscape immediately becomes more regulated, and above all, more closely monitored.
Finally, there's the issue of representation. Luxury loves to tell stories of expert hands, precise gestures, and workshops. If the Indian artisan appears only as a faceless, rights-less “source of inspiration,” the story rings false. Conversely, placing them at the center without resorting to folklore requires precise writing: showcasing the techniques, the materials, and the organization of labor, without turning a culture into mere marketing window dressing.
Prada's response: from a contested narrative to an unapologetic "Made in India" label
Faced with controversy, a fashion house has several options: minimize, justify itself, remain silent, or transform. The strategy described here falls into the category of transformation: Prada chooses to emphasize its origins, highlight its craftsmanship, and explicitly label the product “Made in India.” This shift in framing is crucial because it changes the focus: the issue is no longer simply “Prada has adopted a new style,” but “Prada works with and embraces its origins.”.
This type of response is only credible if it is accompanied by concrete evidence. In crises of appropriation, the public demands details: where the object is produced, by whom, under what conditions, with what materials, and at what price. Communication alone is no longer sufficient; it must be supported by proof, because trust has become documentary. Luxury, historically the master of secrecy, thus finds itself pushed toward a form of deliberate transparency.
Timing is also crucial. Reacting too quickly can give the impression of an opportunistic move; reacting too late allows controversy to dictate the narrative. The challenge is to demonstrate that the shift towards co-creation and provenance is not a band-aid solution, but the beginning of a method. In the case of a house like Prada, whose creative authority is associated with the vision of Miuccia Prada and the artistic direction shared with Raf Simons, the balance is delicate: remaining true to a fashion aesthetic while making origin non-negotiable.
Co-creation: from declaration of intent to contractual mechanics
Talking about co-creation is appealing, but the term can be meaningless. In a product inspired by Kolhapuri chappals, co-creation can take many forms, from technical development to joint decision-making on design elements that define the model's identity. The challenge is to avoid simple subcontracting: producing "in India" is not the same as producing "with" recognized, identified, and fairly compensated Indian artisans.
The question of credit is central. In fashion, credit is not only moral; it is also economic. Naming a workshop, a cooperative, a region creates desirability for its origin and therefore potential value for those who work there. But this credit must be granted, secured, and not imposed. It presupposes agreements on the use of the name, on the image of the artisans, and on how to describe the craft without endangering individuals or local economies.
Value sharing, however, is not limited to “paying better.” It can include commitments to volume, training, investment in tools, quality support, or the co-development of materials. In footwear, details matter: leather quality, cutting, stitching, assembly, finishing, and quality control. If a brand demands a “luxury” level, it must also contribute to the ability to achieve it sustainably, without destructive pressure on deadlines and prices.
Traceability: proving the origin, not just telling the story
In the world of luxury sandals, traceability extends far beyond the final assembly location. It encompasses the leather, dyes, buckles, glue, soles, and all intermediaries. Saying “Made in India” immediately raises a question: what does it encompass? Is it complete manufacturing, assembly, or partial sourcing? At a time when customers are becoming accustomed to certificates, digital passports, and audits, ambiguity becomes a risk.
To be credible, a traceability approach must be based on documentation, controls, and governance. This can include supply chain audits, social and environmental requirements, and proof of payment. Fashion has long operated on layers of opacity; but as soon as it claims craftsmanship, it also claims the responsibility that comes with it. Provenance is no longer a narrative device, it's a commitment.
There is also a quality issue at stake: traceability is not merely a defensive measure. In the luxury sector, it becomes a way to justify the price through the actual content of the product. A sandal inspired by Kolhapuri chappals can be explained by the precision of its cut, the time taken to assemble it, the selection of the leathers, and the meticulous attention to detail in the finishing. Telling the story of its origin also tells the story of the technique, and reminds us that "handmade" is a skill, not a stylistic choice.
The legal framework: geographical indications, protected names and collective rights
The fashion industry is accustomed to trademark and copyright law, but less so to collective rights related to know-how. Kolhapuri chappals are often cited in public debate as an example of production associated with a geographical indication in India, a system designed to protect a name linked to a territory and its methods. For an international fashion house, the question is not simply “do I have the right to draw inspiration from them?”, but rather “how can I use a name, an identity, and an origin without creating confusion or appropriation?”.
The risks are numerous: confusion in marketing, unfulfilled implicit promises, or a perception of deception if the product doesn't conform to the public's idea of a Kolhapuri Chappal. In the luxury sector, reputation is as important an asset as profit margin. A controversy over appropriation can, in a matter of days, taint the perception of an entire collection and permanently damage a brand's cultural authority.
The best legal response isn't always retreat, but clarity: clarifying inspiration, securing the use of names, formalizing partnerships, documenting production stages, and avoiding gray areas. In a world where local communities and institutions are better organized, brands have an interest in anticipating rather than reacting to emergencies. Compliance is becoming an integral part of the creative process.
A fundamental shift in the luxury sector: craftsmanship, provenance, and "heritage" capsules
The Prada case is part of a broader trend: the luxury sector's appetite for craftsmanship and provenance. Customers are looking for objects that "have an origin," identifiable materials, and authentic craftsmanship. For their part, fashion houses are multiplying heritage capsule collections, reissues, craft-focused series, and limited editions that tell the story of the hand as much as the logo. The appeal of the handcrafted sandal, in this context, is logical: it embodies the idea of sophisticated simplicity.
But this trend has a blind spot: it can transform living heritages into mere image banks. When a brand appropriates the notion of craftsmanship without respecting its ecosystems, it risks a backlash. The contemporary consumer, particularly in urban and digital markets, is sensitive to consistency. They know how to distinguish between a campaign that aestheticizes a gesture and an approach that genuinely supports a sector.
“Made in India” then becomes a strategic battleground. India is not just a country of factories; it is a reservoir of skills in embroidery, leatherwork, weaving, and dyeing, with well-structured crafts. For the luxury sector, recognizing this reality can open up more ambitious collaborations, provided the relationship is treated as a partnership and not as a cost-cutting measure. In an era where groups like LVMH and Kering are investing in traceability and responsibility, alignment becomes a prerequisite for competitiveness.
Crisis management: message, timing and “evidence” as a new grammar
Cultural appropriation crises follow a specific pattern. This is not a product crisis in the classical sense; it is a crisis of narrative and legitimacy. The expected response is not merely an explanation, but symbolic and material reparation. In the case of a sandal inspired by Kolhapuri chappals, reparation involves explicit recognition, mention of the artisans, and a demonstration of shared benefit.
The message must be precise. Luxury values suggestion, but here precision is essential. State what has been done, what was misunderstood, what has been corrected, and what will be implemented. The public doesn't demand infallibility; it demands the ability to learn and establish standards. In this sense, the crisis can become an opportunity to formalize what was informal: collaboration charters, attribution clauses, independent audits.
Evidence, finally, is becoming the new elegance.
