Professional equality: When Kering turns social responsibility into an intangible asset

As the luxury sector enters a phase of structural rationalisation, performance is no longer measured solely by income statements. Social governance, employer attractiveness and mastery of non-financial criteria are becoming key competitive variables. In this context, Kering's publication of its 2025 Professional Equality Index goes far beyond a compliance exercise. It offers a valuable insight into the group's organisational strength.

At a time when the performance of a luxury giant is no longer judged solely by its profit margins, what are the equality scores brandished as a manifesto really worth? To what extent are these indices, often seen as compulsory compliance exercises, a true barometer of a group's stability? Beyond the symbolism, what do they reveal about Kering's underlying mechanics?

On January 30, 2026, Kering published its annual results on gender equality, in accordance with the law of September 5, 2018 “for the freedom to choose one's professional future”. While these publications are sometimes relegated to mere formalities, for the group they are a genuine HR management indicator. They also send a strong signal to both talent and investors.

Corporate foundation close to excellence

At the heart of the system, the Economic and Social Unit, which includes Kering SA and Kering Finance, scored 98 out of 100 for 2025. This level places the group among the benchmarks of the CAC 40. It also demonstrates an almost complete mastery of career development mechanisms.

In detail, Kering achieved the maximum score on four of the five regulatory indicators. Pay rise and promotion gaps are perfectly neutralised, with scores of 20 out of 20 and 15 out of 15 respectively. The return from maternity leave is fully secured; each employee concerned receives a salary adjustment, resulting in a score of 15 out of 15. Finally, the presence of the under-represented gender among the ten highest earners is guaranteed, confirmed by a score of 10 out of 10.

The only point of friction relates to the overall pay gap, which scored 38 out of 40, meaning two points were missed. This is a marginal difference, but it highlights the precision of the system. It also shows a clear desire to identify areas for improvement, even at this level of performance.

Industry and beauty: more varied dynamics

The operational entities offer a more nuanced picture. France Croco, a subsidiary specialising in precious leathers, achieved a solid score of 94 out of 100. Pay equity is almost perfect at 39 out of 40. However, the representation of the under-represented gender in the ten highest-paid positions is capped at 5 out of 10. This is a typical signal in industrial professions, where career paths to the top remain slower and more male-dominated, despite overall gender balance being well-managed.

The case of Kering Beauté is more unusual. Its index was declared “incalculable” for the 2025 financial year. This was due to a workforce size that did not meet the minimum points threshold required by the methodology. For a division undergoing structuring, this lack of a score does not indicate underperformance. Instead, it highlights the challenge of stabilising the workforce to allow for a robust medium-term assessment.

Why these scores really matter

For a group that owns Gucci, Saint Laurent or Bottega Veneta, the Professional Equality Index is not just another social indicator. It stands at the intersection of three major business challenges.

First, talent attraction. The luxury industry relies on creative and managerial roles that are largely filled by women. Here, pay equity and career visibility directly influence the ability to recruit and retain key profiles.

Second, the ESG perspective of investors. In a context of tightening non-financial criteria, a score of 98 out of 100 sends a reassuring governance signal. It reduces perceived social risk and strengthens the group's credibility in the markets.

Finally, brand consistency. A company that champions emancipation and inclusivity in its creative narratives cannot afford internal dissonance. In this respect, the Index becomes a tool for strategic alignment as much as a regulatory indicator.

Self-assessment under constraint… but not without blind spots

The Professional Equality Index is based on an often-criticised principle: self-assessment by the companies themselves. Kering, like all French groups, calculates and publishes its scores internally. This is done according to a methodology strictly regulated by decree.

This method of operation is not an exception but the norm in French social law. It does, however, pose a structural limitation. The Index measures statistical gaps, not power dynamics, informal career paths or invisible managerial decisions.

In other words, it captures what is measurable, not necessarily what is decisive.

A high score demonstrates HR discipline. However, it says little or nothing about the speed of access to key positions, the concentration of decision-making power or the reproduction of internal elites.

What penalties, what safeguards?

From a regulatory standpoint, penalties exist but remain largely financial and symbolic. A company with a score below 75 out of 100 faces a penalty of up to 1 percent of its total payroll. This is coupled with an obligation to negotiate and implement a corrective action plan.

In Kering's case, the issue is not framed in these terms, as its high scores eliminate any risk of penalties. This highlights a key aspect of the system: the Index is designed as an incentive tool, not as a deeply coercive instrument.

For a luxury group, the real penalty lies elsewhere. It is reputational, stock market-related and HR-focused. In a sector where employer image determines access to creative and executive talent, a poor score would carry far more weight than an administrative fine.

HR centralisation: advantage — and limitation — of Kering model

A sector comparison sheds further light on these results. Unlike groups such as LVMH or Hermès, whose houses enjoy significant historical autonomy, Kering relies on a more centralised HR organisation.

This structure promotes consistency in practices, data consolidation and the rapid correction of discrepancies. Where some competitors struggle to harmonise dozens of quasi-sovereign entities, Kering uses its corporate structures as true matrices of social governance.

This centralisation also presents an analytical limitation. It tends to produce excellent scores at the head office. However, it can mask slower dynamics in highly specialised industrial or creative fields, where cultural resistance is more widespread and harder for the Index to capture.

Solid figures, but not an end in itself

Kering's 2025 results reflect an undeniable reality: the group manages its professional equality indicators better than the CAC 40 average. They are a strong signal of governance and organisational maturity.

They should not, however, be interpreted as definitive proof of lived equality or perfect fairness. In the luxury sector, where value is based on the intangible, the temptation for “virtuous reporting” exists. The difference will now be made beyond the regulatory tool, in areas the Index does not yet measure. These include real access to power; the diversity of paths to excellence; and the transformation of managerial cultures.

In this sense, Kering's figures are neither smoke and mirrors nor absolute proof. They mark a point of balance. They also serve as a reminder that, in luxury as elsewhere, social performance begins precisely where the indicators end.

This article was translated to English using an AI tool.

OR CONTINUE WITH

equal pay

Kering

Workinfashion