Are millennials really more sensitive to

sustainable luxury? A cross-generational

international comparison of sustainability
consciousness when buying luxury

Jean-Noël Kapferer & Anne Michaut-

Denizeau

Journal of Brand Management

ISSN 1350-231X

J Brand Manag
DOI 10.1057/s41262-019-00165-7
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Nature Limited. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived
in electronic repositories. If you wish to
self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.
 Author's personal copy
Journal of Brand Management
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-019-00165-7

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Are millennials really more sensitive to sustainable luxury?

A cross-generational international comparison of sustainability
consciousness when buying luxury
Jean-Noël Kapferer1  · Anne Michaut-Denizeau2

Revised: 5 October 2018

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Abstract
Sustainable development is on the agenda of all economic sectors. This is a radical change for the luxury market, so far
discreet on these matters. In addition, baby boomers have passed the torch to new segments of luxury purchasers: Genera-
tion X-ers and now millennials, the latter being described as most sensitive to sustainability issues in general. But is their
alleged sensitivity still front of their mind when they buy luxuries? A cross-generational international comparison reveals
that millennials’ sensitivity to the sustainability of luxury brands when purchasing luxuries is not that different from older
generations. However, the motivations of luxury buyers’ sensitivity (or total lack of) to the sustainable actions of luxury
brands differ across generations. Millennials are those who consider the most that luxury and sustainability are contradictory.
This opinion is held across countries, Asian or Western, in emerging or mature economies. These millennials’ specificities
have strong implications if luxury brands wish to preserve their sustainable future.

Keywords Luxury · Sustainability · Ethics · Social responsibility · CSR · Millennials

As major actors of the economic world, all corporations
are concerned by sustainable development, whatever their
domain of activity. The World Commission on Environment
and Development (i.e., The Brundtland Commission) defines
sustainable development as: “the development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs” (1987, p.
8). Sustainability is much more than our relationship to the
environment; it involves also the economy and our harmo-
nious relationship with our social community. Naturally, as
first concerned one thinks of such sectors as energy, mining,
chemistry, agriculture, food, transportation and textile. By
their size, they have an enormous impact on the likelihood of
achieving the objectives defined in the Paris Accord: reduce
* Jean-Noël Kapferer
jnkapferer@inseec.com
Anne Michaut-Denizeau
michaut@hec.fr
1
INSEEC Business School, 43 Quai de Grenelle, 75015 Paris,
France
2
HEC Paris, 1 Rue de la Libération, 78350 Jouy en Josas,
France
carbon emissions and curb the global heating of the planet
and diminish water consumption.
Luxury has been for long below the radars of sustain-
ability consciousness (Bendell and Kleanthous 2007). One
first reason was that it is a rather small sector: Bain—a con-
sultancy specialized on luxury—estimates that the whole
luxury market value at retail is 1171 billion €, including
automobiles, personal luxuries, hospitality, travel, food,
wine and spirits, skincare, furniture, yachts (Bain 2019). Yet
this figure is around the double of Walmart world revenues
in 2018 (496 billion $). A second reason is that luxury pur-
chases are not frequent, unlike fast‐moving consumer goods,
including what is called fast fashion. But the times have
changed since luxury companies want to epitomize the high-
est level of quality in the world. Although they purposely
remain discreet on these matters, all luxury groups and
companies have engaged a continuous process of ecologi-
cal transformation of their value chain, from raw materials
sourcing, production, logistics, HR management to retailing
and post‐purchase recycling (Winston 2017). Kering, world
No 2 luxury group, puts sustainability as one of its strategic
differentiators (Carcano 2013) and now yearly publishes a
sustainability P&L, alongside their Financial Annual Report.

Vol.:(0123456789)
 Author's personal copy
Yet luxury consumers have not been so far a major steer-
ing force of this process of transformation of the luxury
industry. Even when they manifest sympathy for these
causes, most luxury consumers do not take sustainability
into account when they buy (Carrigan and Attalla 2001;
Joergens 2006; Achabou and Dekhili 2013; Cervellon and
Shammas 2013a, b; Voyer and Beckham 2014; Kapferer and
Michaut 2014, 2015b; Dekhili and Achabou 2016; Rolling
and Sadachar 2017; Deloitte 2017).
Those who brought sustainability to the consciousness
of luxury groups’corporate headquarters are the NGO’s
(Lochard and Murat 2011). Greenpeace and PETA among
others have been active in unveiling alleged misbehaviors
of well-known luxury brands and encouraged more trans-
parency of the production processes (tanning leather for
instance, alligator farms). This led the major jeweler brands
to sign the Kimberly agreement that forbids selling gems
coming from war zones (Burma, Zaire, Congo, etc.). De
Beers is now producing man‐made diamonds too.
The immediate future of luxury: millennials
Another major phenomenon is hitting the future of the lux-
ury industry: a new generation is taking power, and their
sensitivity to sustainability is said to be high (Hwang and
Griffiths 2017). The baby boomers, those born between 1946
and 1964, who fueled the growth of the luxury market, are
now retiring. They started turning 65 years old in 2011
and are no longer the most affluent demographic segment
(Satter 2015). Although in the USA—according to IPSOS
Affluent Survey (2015)—Gen X-ers are now the majority,
new interrogations are already focusing on the emerging Y
generation (those born between 1981 and 2000) also called
the millennials, “the next wave of luxury spenders” (Eisen
2011). Even more than the X-ers, a considerable amount
of the literature has emerged about these millennials, gen-
eration Y: they were born with the Internet and therefore
should strongly be impacted by the deep values of the net
(Fromm and Garton 2013; Taylor 2016). They are said to be
a disruptive generation, fond of technology, very tech savvy
as well as advocates of the sharing, collaborative or even
free economy. They are more idealistic and less materialist,
more interested in experiences than in possessions (Lu et al.
2013; Deloitte 2017). If this profile of generation Y proves
true, it may strongly impact the future of the luxury industry
whose core value is materialism, that is to say the belief that
possessing more goods makes people happier (Belk 1985;
Shrum et al. 2013; Sun et al. 2016). Generation Y should in
theory put a higher pressure than their parents on the luxury
industry speed of transformation toward more sustainability.
This defines the purpose of the present research. Will
millennials rock the boat as suggested by Forbes’ headline
J.-N. Kapferer, A. Michaut-Denizeau
“How millennials will reshape the luxury market” (2017
June 20) or by a recent HBR article reporting that luxury
industry leaders “believe strongly that millennials more
than previous generations care about sustainability” (Win-
ston 2017, p 4). Marticotte (2018) shows that millennials
hate luxury brands most when they feel they lack ethics
and integrity. Yet little research has focused on genera-
tional differences as far as sustainability is concerned,
especially when purchasing luxuries. Bain (2016) identi-
fied what is perceived as most important about sustain-
ability among respondents of three generations: “respect
of the environment” came first (48%) without differences
between generations, followed by “safety of products”
(44%) and “animal friendliness” (30%). But this study did
not specifically focus on luxury itself.
Many studies have analyzed the sociopsychologi-
cal sources of the high interest for luxury brands among
teenagers and young adults (Gil et al. 2012; Schade et al.
2016). Fewer studies focused on the impact of sustainabil-
ity concerns among millennials at the time of purchase of
luxury items. Their results are paradoxical. Deloitte (2017)
international survey of 1005 millennials confirms that two-
thirds of them admitted considering the sustainability and
ethics of the luxury brand at the time of purchase, but only
“rarely or sometimes.” Knowing the social desirability of
such questions, one measures how far it is from the lip to
the cup. Deloitte admitted not knowing why the sustain-
ability consciousness of millennials was paradoxically
quite low in luxury buying. The answers could come from
Voyer and Beckham (2014) who showed that a luxury bag
was perceived as less luxurious when it was described as
sustainable (i.e., made with recycled materials). Rolling
and Sadachar (2017) also found that “impression of lux-
ury” was the sole impression to significantly predict the
attitude vis à vis a luxury brand (compared to “impression
of sustainability”).
This lack of research on the impact of sustainability
on millennials actual luxury purchases defines the three
objectives of the present research:
• to compare luxury buyers’ sensitivity to sustainability
when buying luxury items, across generations: are mil-
lennials much more sensitive as predicted?
• to weigh the motivations for being sensitive (or totally
insensitive) to sustainable actions when buying luxu-
ries: do millennials’ reasons differ from their elders’
reasons?
• to assess if millennials’ attitude about the coexistence of
luxury and sustainability is indeed homogeneous across
countries, cultures, levels of economic development,
maturity of the luxury market. This study encompasses
samples from China, Japan, USA, Brazil, Germany and
France.
 Author's personal copy
Are millennials really more sensitive to sustainable luxury? A cross-generational…
Can sustainability be luxurious?
The luxury concept has an endless number of definitions
(see Heine 2011 for a review). Luxus, the Latin root of lux-
ury, means excess: hence, the luxury sector is the industry
of excess, at the opposite of the frugal lifestyle attached to
sustainability and the preservation of rare ingredients and
limited resources on earth. No wonder why a majority of
consumers do not spontaneously associate sustainability
with luxury (Cervellon 2013; Voyer and Beckham 2014;
Dekhili and Achabou 2016). For them, the sustainability
semantic space is made of words such as reduce, protect,
economize, respect, give back and cause no harm quite far
from the semantic space attached to luxury (dreams, exclu-
sivity, beauty, not accessible to all, prestige, power, preva-
lence of emotion over function). The contradiction between
sustainability and luxury relates to their DNA: luxury is tied
to vertical social stratification (Kapferer and Bastien 2012),
whereas sustainability implies social responsibility and
respectful horizontal mutual relationships. Luxury is con-
sidered by some critics and activist groups as the epitome of
the mindless consumption in our modern society (Kozinets
and Handelman 2004).
There is, however, an opposite vision, considering sus-
tainability as part of luxury essence (Kapferer 2010; Hen-
nigs et al. 2013). Luxury is the industry of excellence that
prefers quality to quantity, preserves the most talented crafts-
men, worships heritage, defends local production against
delocalization (unlike fast fashion which rests on mass pro-
duction in low‐wage countries) and encourages creativity
and beauty. Last but not least: luxury products are made to
last forever. Luxury is the industry of long-term worth, at the
opposite of the organized waste, planned obsolescence, typi-
cal of modern commodities as well as technological products
or even fashion goods (which are hot today, but thrown away
tomorrow). Interestingly, empirical research has shown that
the more a consumer declares high quality as most salient
defining attribute of luxury, the less one considers luxury
and sustainability to be contradictory (Kapferer and Michaut
2015a).
All luxury groups (Kering, LVMH, Richemont, IWC,
Swatch Group) now consider sustainability as a key suc-
cess factor. This does not mean they publicly communicate
much on it. With the exception of very few designer brands
such as Stella McCartney, luxury continues to sell dreams,
creativity, craft, heritage and exclusivity not sustainability.
Even Stella McCartney as a brand does not insist too much
on its sustainability facet. Sustainability helped position this
brand when it started, backed by Stella McCartney prestig-
ious family name and own specific tastes (she is a vegan and
refuses to use real leather). In the luxury market, no sustain-
able brand is reaching the top ten of preferences. This is why
to grow, a sustainable brand must build its appeal beyond
the sustainability aficionados. One side effect of this dis-
creetness on the part of luxury brands is that luxury clients
may not be aware of what brands are very active in terms
of sustainability, nor even know that there is a segment of
sustainable luxury brands. Worse because the luxury indus-
try does not like to brag, one may wrongly believe that the
luxury brands are not acting nor improving their sustain-
able KPI’s. Nothing is farther from reality (Carcano 2013;
Winston 2017).
The determinants of sensitivity and insensitivity
to sustainable luxury
Academic evidence repeatedly shows that only a few luxury
clients use sustainability as a choice criterion when making
a luxury purchase (Davies et al. 2012; Joy et al. 2012; Kap-
ferer and Michaut 2014). Is this pessimistic figure still valid
among millennials, who should be much more sensitive?
This is the first objective of this transgenerational research,
descriptive. The second objective goes beyond description
and explores the reasons why someone might care/or not
care at all about sustainable luxury when making an actual
luxury purchase. Luxury clients are affluent persons, often
quite educated, and hence easily admitting that sustainability
is a major issue for humanity (Currid 2017). Why then such
a gap between attitudes and actions? Is it another case of the
classical discrepancy between what attitudes and behaviors
(Ajzen and Fishbein 1980)?
Caveat: insensitivity is not the opposite
of sensitivity
Although these two words seem to be antonyms, recent
empirical research shows that the measures of sensitivity
and of insensitivity to sustainability are not correlated, as
one might expect. Actually, their correlation is close to zero
(Kapferer and Michaut 2015b). Insensitivity was measured
by items such as “What luxury brands do in terms of sus-
tainability does not matter to me”, whereas sensitivity was
measured by items such as “I tend to choose luxury brands
committed to sustainable development” and “I would imme-
diately boycott a luxury brand if I learned it does not comply
with sustainability demands.” As it is not intuitive that non-
sensitivity and sensitivity do not constitute the two extremes
of the same underlying dimension (or factor), it is wiser to
use another wording for insensitivity: disengagement. Dis-
engaged clients are those declaring they do not care at all:
sustainability has no interest to their eyes, at least as far as
luxury purchasing is concerned. On the contrary, sensitive
clients are actively searching the most sustainable brands or
eager to learn about the degree of sustainability of a luxury
product at the time of purchase. They could also boycott any
 Author's personal copy
luxury brand if they learned it did not respect the demands
of sustainability.
The determinants of disengagement
What reasons would someone invoke to justify being totally
uninterested by sustainability when purchasing a luxury
good? Academic research suggests four main ones
• According to Davies et al. (2012), consumers do not want
to be bothered when they make a luxury purchase. It is a
gift they make to themselves or to their beloved ones, an
access to a “dream” of exclusivity, excellence and experi-
ence (Dubois and Paternault 1995). They may not want
to learn about the untold realities of production, supply
chain, raw materials, carbon imprint, etc. They want to
live their parenthesis of pleasure. Nothing should reduce
this pleasure. Personal needs motivate them more than
ethical issues (Joergens 2006). Theory makes no predic-
tions about age differences concerning this lever of dis-
engagement.
• Another important rationale of clients’ disengagement
is that most luxury clients have no knowledge of which
brands are actively engaged in sustainable development.
If the mental category “sustainable luxury” does not
exist, it cannot influence the decision process: when there
is no choice, there is no decision stricto sensu. As a mat-
ter of fact, most 100% sustainable brands have still low
levels of brand awareness and thus lack prestige and do
not create much desirability. One exception is Tesla elec-
tric automobiles, thanks to the very high media visibil-
ity of their charismatic and visionary CEO, Elon Musk.
There is another side to this lever of disengagement: cli-
ents may purposely avoid any negative information that
could deter them from their preferred brand (Carrigan
and Attalla 2001). This is close to the willful ignorance
phenomenon described by Ehrich and Irwin (2005). In
terms of age differences, one might hypothesize that this
lever should be low among millennials, since they are
much more informed about fashion, luxury.
• A third reason to justify one’s disengagement refers to the
perceived impact of the luxury industry on the environ-
ment: quite small indeed. Taking diamonds, for instance,
most of them are of unknown origin, eventually coming
from war zones. Yet the weight of the luxury interna-
tional brands themselves in the total world trade of dia-
monds is very small (however, their symbolic weight is
not). If consumers are rational in their decision process
(Kahneman 2012), they should be more sensitive when
purchases can have a real impact on the planet. Why
should one bother about an exceptional purchase that
will happen once or twice in a lifetime? How can such
small quantities have an impact that justifies to care about
J.-N. Kapferer, A. Michaut-Denizeau
sustainability? Indeed, Davies et al. (2012) showed that
sustainability and ethics influenced less luxury purchas-
ing than the purchase of fast-moving consumer goods:
thanks to the high frequency of purchases of FMCG boy-
cotts have the power to hurt the faulting companies. This
lever should have a high weight among millennials. As
they are more sensitive to sustainable issues in general
(Deloitte 2017), one way to overcome their higher dis-
sonance cognitive is by leveraging the small impact of
luxury based on the small quantities each purchase rep-
resents.
• Last but not least, some clients do consider that luxury
and sustainability are intrinsically contradictory (Voyer
and Beckham 2014). If—as said by Adam Smith—luxury
starts when “necessaries” stop, there is indeed a contra-
diction. Sustainability activists should be non-clients of
the luxury industry: they would feel guilty to purchase
such excessive products whose price is far above their
functional value. The present research is based on actual
luxury clients, selected by means of their declared pur-
chases of a number of items above a certain price.
The determinants of sensitivity?
What reasons would be invoked by clients declaring to be
very sensitive to sustainability when making a luxury pur-
chase? In practice, such sensitivity would lead these clients
to boycott any brand that would be guilty of misbehaving in
terms of sustainability? The reasons of consumers’ anger are
tied to the implicit expectations created by luxury brands
themselves (Kapferer and Michaut 2015a)
• A first one is the high price of luxury, beyond what is
reasonable. Actually, to paraphrase Seth Godin (May 17
2009) luxury prices are “needlessly expensive,” above
what rational pricing would command. This is what
distinguishes the prices of premium brands vs luxury
brands. Now, there is a counterpart to these high prices:
everything is supposed to be included in them. If despite
its high price, a luxury brand was shown to harm some
stakeholders’ interest, in opposition to what sustainability
commands, this would create immediate anger among
the luxury clients, a sign of their latent sensitivity. On
theoretical grounds, no specific hypothesis about inter-
generational differences of weight of this lever is made.
• The same reasoning applies to the expectations raised
by the storytelling of the luxury industry and of most
luxury brands. National syndicates of luxury brands
(such as Comité Colbert in France, Meisterkreis in Ger-
many and Altagamma in Italy) put forth an image of
luxury products as rare and exemplar on all accounts.
As a result, one expects no flaw at all, whatever the
facet: ethical, sustainable and socially responsive also.
 Author's personal copy
Are millennials really more sensitive to sustainable luxury? A cross-generational…
Yet regularly, NGOs unveil some luxury brands’ misbe-
haviors. An analysis of those luxury brands’ misbehav-
iors most likely to create negative reactions (Kapferer
and Michaut 2014) identifies animal mistreatments as
a highly sensitive issue, as well as destroying unsold
products instead of discounting them or having prod-
ucts made in low‐wage countries yet sold at very high
prices.
Because these misbehaviors receive a large echo in the
social networks, one can hypothesize that this motivation
has a higher weight among millennials.
• A third reason justifying high sensitivity is linked to
the fact that luxury brands present themselves as the
apex of quality. But quality is a concept that evolves
with time. Today, one expects a wine without sulfites.
Even Château Latour has to consider this mounting
demand. In the automobile industry, quality today
means recyclability of the parts: 75% of a 911 Porsche
are recyclable. Tomorrow, thermic engines will mean
no quality at all: all automobiles will have to be electric
or hydrogen powered. This pretention to incarnate the
best quality—a form of arrogance—may fast backlash
if the luxury brand is shown not to achieve the level of
quality it says it does, with the rise of the new mean-
ings attached to the word quality.
• A fourth reason of being sensitive to sustainability
when buying luxury goods is tied to the social image
this purchase projects about the buyer, especially if
the brand and the sustainable product line are famous.
Thus, driving a Tesla S is a message of being avant-
garde. Owning a Gucci Rain Forest bag sends a mes-
sage that one is not simply splashing one’s money but
one takes care too about the planet. This motivation is
what Griskevicius et al. (2010) call “green conspicu-
ousness.” Today, the “new chic” would be to buy lux-
ury items which are known by all people around you as
ecology conscious or highly sustainable. Beyond one’s
wealth, it shows off one’s education level and cultural
awareness (Currid 2017). This self-image motivation
is not operating when the sustainable brand is too
unknown, as are its own prices. Sustainable luxury
must first of all be luxury.
In terms of hypothesis, this lever should be high among
millennials. Identity development process theory reminds
us that one builds one’s independent self through age.
Younger people are more concerned about what their peers
think: they have an interdependent self-concept, subject
to peer pressure (Gil et al. 2012). Being cool is a major
objective to be accepted.
Research hypotheses
On the basis of the above literature review a number of
hypotheses can be put forth.
H1 Millennials are more sensitive to the sustainability of a
luxury product or brand when they purchase a luxury item
than their former generations.
H2 Millennials are less disengaged about sustainability
issues when they purchase a luxury item than their former
generations.
H3 The motivations of sensitivity to sustainable luxury
vary across generations: “expected highest quality” (H3A)
and “new chic” (H3B) should be higher motivations among
millennials.
H4 The motivations of disengagement vis à vis sustainable
luxury vary across generations: “not knowing which luxury
brands or products are sustainable” should be lower motiva-
tions among millennials (H4A); “small quantities” (H4B),
and “built-in contradiction” (H4C) should be higher motiva-
tions among millennials.
Cultural differences among millennials
The word millennial emerged in the USA: Strauss and Howe
(1991) are said to have coined the word which soon became
a buzzword, like Generation Y. Now, is a millennial liv-
ing in Kyoto the same as one living in Shanghai or in San
Francisco?
• On the one side, one is compelled to acknowledge the
very strong differences between Asian and Western cul-
tures, and even between Japan and China.
• On the other hand, one must also acknowledge a global
pop culture. The Internet and the global brands, music,
series, movies, themselves have propelled this world cul-
ture (Schröder and Salzer-Mörling 2006) aimed in prior-
ity at youth. As a result, we hypothesize that there should
be a strong homogeneity of opinions among millennials
from different countries.
• The most significant opinion indeed is that of a perceived
built-in contradiction between luxury and sustainability.
Luxury represents the apex of materialism (posses-
sions as a pathway to happiness and social recognition)
while sustainability leads to abandon the endless pursuit
of always more possessions for the sake of preserving
limited earth resources. Kilbourne and Pickett (2008)
showed how materialism decreases people’s beliefs in the
existence of environmental problems. But more recent
research across 20 countries (Ipsos 2013) has shown
 Author's personal copy
that materialism (“I measure my success by the things
I own”) was also high in formerly communist countries
(China), as well as in other emerging economies (India,
Turkey, Brazil). However, regarding the perceived con-
tradiction between luxury and sustainability, Strizhakova
and Coulter (2013) showed that in emerging countries
the growth concern came out at the same time as the
sustainability concern: they should be seen as far less
contradictory than in the mature economies where sus-
tainability is a very recent concern and thus perceived
as contradicting the bases of former economic growth
and richness. This should be most acute in the USA, the
country where materialism is institutionalized and rein-
forced, according to Kilbourne and Pickett (2008). This
leads to two supplemental hypotheses.
H5 In each country, millennials should be the generation
that perceives the most luxury and sustainability as con-
tradictory. This is an extension of hypothesis H4C to all
countries.
H6 In each generation, the perception of the contradiction
between luxury and sustainability should vary across coun-
tries, with a higher contradiction perceived in the USA.
Research objectives and methodology
To summarize, the present research aims at exploring the
actual sensitivity of generation Y (millennials) to sustain-
ability when these consumers are purchasing luxury goods.
Beyond this descriptive assessment of sensitivity (or lack
of) to sustainability and the comparison across generations,
this research investigates if the levers of each generation’s
sensitivity (or disengagement) are the same. The above
literature review identified four potential reasons used to
justify disengagement (i.e., total lack of concern) and four
other reasons explaining sensitivity to sustainability issues
when purchasing luxury products. Their weight as motiva-
tors will be measured through multiple regressions within
each generational segment. Finally, are millennials’ answers
homogeneous across countries?
• To avoid external validity threats, only actual luxury
buyers were included in this research. Respondents were
selected if they passed a filtering question concerning
their recent (12 months) purchases of a number of luxury
products, for both males and females, above a certain
price. This price was chosen as the median of the mini-
mum perceived price of luxury for each product category
(Kapferer and Laurent 2016).
J.-N. Kapferer, A. Michaut-Denizeau
• To avoid threats of ethnocentrism, often encountered in
luxury researches limited to one single country, the pre-
sent research is based on 3217 actual luxury clients, from
six countries worldwide. The multigenerational sample is
drawn from the main luxury markets in the world (Bain
2019), both Asian and Western, both mature and emerg-
ing economies: China (n = 672), USA (n = 501), Japan
(n = 461) France (n = 533), Germany (n = 512), Brazil
(n = 538). Each national sample was extracted from an
affluent Internet panel in its home country (Table 1).
Generational boundaries
We split the sample into five age segments (Markert 2004;
Eastman and Jun 2012). Two of them relate to millennials
themselves (also called Y-ers), and the others are related to
the X-ers, baby boomers and seniors. The breakdown of ages
in the sample of 3217 respondents is as follows:
• Generation Y includes two cohorts, to answer concerns
about the lack of homogeneity of too broad generational
boundaries (Valentine and Powers 2013), 18–24 (Gen
Y-1, n = 479) and 25–34 (Gen Y-2, n = 963). The first
cohort, the youngest of the study, includes people born
between 1990 and 1996, and the second cohort spans
from 1980 until 1989. This is to take into account the
fact that the older millennials are now above 35 years
old, whereas the youngest ones are just in their twenties,
yet they are not part of generation Zs (still teenagers).
• Generation X (35–49 years old) corresponds to people
born between 1965 and 1979 (n = 734).
• Baby Boomers (50–64 years old) correspond to people
born between 1950 and 1964 (n = 413).
• Seniors (65–75 years old) were born between 1939 and
1949 (n = 413).
Dependent variable measurement
Prior research (Kapferer and Michaut 2015a) revealed that
disengagement items (total lack of concern) were not loading
Table 1 Sample breakdown by country
N % % cumulative
France 533 16.6 16.6
USA 501 15.6 32.1
China 672 20.9 53.0
Brazil 538 16.7 69.8
Germany 512 15.9 85.7
Japan 461 14.3 100.0
Total 3217 100.0
 Author's personal copy
Are millennials really more sensitive to sustainable luxury? A cross-generational…

on the same factor as sensitivity items. On that basis, two
dependent variables are defined:
1. One called “disengagement” measured by two items,
Likert scaled (What luxury brands do in terms of sus-
tainability does not matter to me/When I buy a luxury
product I never wonder if the brand is committed to
social or environmental actions).
2. One called “sensitivity” measured by two items, Likert
scaled (Today I tend to choose luxury brands that are
ethical, committed to sustainable development/I could
immediately stop buying a luxury brand if I learned it
does not comply to sustainable development).
On the basis of the international sample, one checked first
if these four items did not load on the same underlying fac-
tor, and actually made up two distinct factors. As in prior
research, these four items yielded the extraction of two fac-
tors with eigenvalues higher than 1 explaining 76.5% of the
total variance. The variables “When I buy a luxury I never
wonder if the brand is committed to social or environmen-
tal actions” and “What luxury brands do in terms of sus-
tainability does not matter to me” loaded above .8 on one
dimension (see Table 2). They are interpreted as what is
called Disengagement, referring to the fact that consumers
express a kind of detachment toward sustainability when
buying luxuries. The second dimension consists of the items
“Today I tend to choose luxury brands that are committed
to sustainable development” and “I could stop purchasing a
luxury brand if I learned it does not comply to sustainable
development.” They are interpreted as an active Sensitivity
toward sustainability. Cronbach’s alpha for each of the two
scales is − .70 (disengagement scale) and .68 (sensitivity
scale).
The correlation between these two components is
once again very small, negative yet significant − .111 (S,
p < 0.01). Interestingly, this correlation (or lack of) varies
across generations: − 0.074 (NS) among the 18–24, 0.01
(NS) among the 25–34, − 0.121 (S, p < 0.01) among the
35–49, − 0.141 (S, p < 0.01) among the 50–64 and − 0.359
(S, p < 0.01) among the 65–75. Although remaining very
small, the level of negative correlation of these two supposed
antonyms (sensitivity and disengagement) grows with age.
It is nil among millennials (18–24 and 25–34) and is the
highest among seniors.
As depicted in Table  3, one is struck by the absence
of correlation between disengagement and seven items

Table 2 Sustainability: disengagement and sensitivity are two different factors

Components
1 Disengagement vis à 2 Sensitivity to
vis sustainable luxury sustainable luxury

When I buy a luxury, I never wonder if the brand is committed to social or environmental actions .877 − .095
What luxury brands do in terms of sustainability does not matter to me .876 − .101
Today, I tend to choose luxury brands that are committed to sustainable development − .057 .874
I could stop purchasing a luxury brand if I learned it does not comply to sustainable development − .139 .870
Cronbach’s alpha − .70 .68

Item loadings on principal components (after oblimin rotation). Component correlation: − .111

Table 3 Sensitivity to sustainable luxury is correlated to general sustainable actions. Disengagement is not
Declared sustainable actions in general 1 Disengagement vis à vis sustain- 2 Sensitivity to
able luxury n = 3051 sustainable luxury
n = 2975

Q3.1 I preferably choose healthy products with no coloring or conservatives − .122** .273**
Q3.2 I intend to convince people around me to behave in a sustainable way − .053** .300**
Q3.3 I seek to limit my water and energy consumption − .092** .174**
Q3.4 I boycott firms and brands that are not compliant − .084** .302**
Q3.5 I have volunteer activities .005 .220**
Q3.6 I invest to limit my energy consumption .011 .242**
Q3.7 I donate for charity, associations and NGOs − .016 .241**

Bivariate correlations between sensitivity and disengagement vis à vis sustainable luxury and six behaviors representative of a general sustain-
able orientation
Correlation significance levels: *p < 0,05 and **p < 0,01
 Author's personal copy
measuring sustainability-oriented general behaviors and the
weakness of correlation between these same general behav-
iors and sensitivity to sustainability when making luxury
purchases.
One can hypothesize that most highly sustainability-ori-
ented persons are not luxury clients, as they should be hos-
tile to conspicuous purchasing, excess and perceived waste
of money for the happiness of a minority. Luxury worships
materialistic values, and in principle sustainability hates
them. General sustainable behaviors are positively correlated
to sustainable luxury sensitivity, but the highest correlation
remains small .30 (R2 = 0.09) as if luxury purchases were
indeed a world apart.
Results
The first set of results refers to H1 and H2. What is the level
of sensitivity (or disengagement) vis à vis sustainability
when making a luxury purchase? According to published
research and unanimous echoes in the mass media, millen-
nials should be by far the most sensitive generation and the
youngest millennial cohort still more than the older millen-
nial cohort.
To answer, analyses are made at the factor level, by com-
paring the five subgroup average answers to each of the two
components (Table 4)
What does Table 4 show? The average scores on sensitiv-
ity to sustainable luxury of each age group are above 6.5.
On the whole, the mean differences between groups are not
significant at p < 0.05 level. Millennials do not stand out as
more sensitive to sustainability at the time of purchase, thus
disconfirming H1. Yet, Table 4 also reveals that the mean
levels of disengagement (below 5.8) are on the whole lower
than the mean levels of sensitivity (above 6.5). Three groups
emerge on this disengagement component, quite related to
age. The least disengaged are the seniors (above 65 years
old), and the most disengaged are the millennials. This lat-
ter result does not echo the unanimous voice heard on the
street, or in the media about millennials’ strong demands
of more sustainability. It strongly disconfirms H2. Let us
Table 4 Disengagement mean Generations (age) N Sensitivity to sustainable luxury Disengagement vis à vis
components scores
65–75 385
50–64 582
35–49 695
25–34 911
18–24 454
In each column, findings sharing the same superscript are not significantly different at α < 0.05 (SNK test)
J.-N. Kapferer, A. Michaut-Denizeau
remind that by design, the present research focuses on the
luxury sector, characterized by highly infrequent purchases.
Also, one phrased the sensitivity/disengagement questions
not in general terms (which induce too much yes saying)
but in behavioral terms “at the time of purchase.” On the
other hand, these results are in line with experimental stud-
ies showing that even among millennials, information about
sustainability does not create more desire, nor a higher per-
ception of luxury. On the contrary both are reduced.
A second set of results refers to H3 and H4. Within each
age group, what is the weight of the motivations underly-
ing either high sensitivity to sustainability when purchasing
luxuries or total disengagement, lack of concern? Are these
weights the same across generations or do they actually
vary? To answer, each component score was held as depend-
ent variable. These components were regressed on the set of
reasons potentially held as underlying each of them, based
on the literature review. Table 5 summarizes these two sets
of regressions.
Commentaries on Table 5
What does Table  5 tell? The first learning from a com-
parison of the standardized beta weights attached to each
reason is that there are strong differences between genera-
tions concerning the motivations of their sensitivity or their
disengagement.
• Regarding the sensitivity motivations, one measures
how necessary it is to distinguish between generations:
their motivations do considerably vary (much more than
those of disengagement). This is true also within the so-
called “millennials,” between the youngest and the less
young: their motivational hierarchy differs strongly. For
the youngest one single motivation stands out: green
conspicuousness. The new chic, trendiness, is to buy
sustainable (ß = .376). This is by far the most salient
motivator of sensitivity of this younger subgroup, just
before “Luxury means the highest quality” (ß = .214).
Thus, hypotheses H3A and H3B are at least validated
among this youngest cohort. They are not for the older
(mean score) sustainable luxury (mean
score)
6.58a 5.04a
6.81a,b 5.24a,b
7.04b 5.47b
6.85a,b 5.83c
6.59a 5.74c
 Author's personal copy
Are millennials really more sensitive to sustainable luxury? A cross-generational…

Table 5 Motivations of sensitivity and disengagement vis à vis sustainable luxury vary by age
18–24 25–34 35–49 50–64 65–75 All

Dependent variable: SENSITIVITY

(Constant)
Q9.5 By definition, a luxury brand is exemplary in everything and hence in terms of sustain- .102* .226** .265** .245** .293** .233**
ability
Q9.8 Luxury means high quality, and luxury products necessarily meet the requirements of .214** .097** − .017 − .036 − .055 .035*
sustainability
Q9.9 Given their price, the least luxury brands should do is to be compliant .157** .277** .292** .161** .301** .244**
Q9.22 Today, the real chic is to buy luxury goods respectful of sustainability .376** .264** .225** .409** .297** .306**
R2 .415 .433 .338 .397 .400 .390
Dependent variable: DISENGAGED
(Constant)
Q9.4 When I buy a luxury product, I only think of my own pleasure or the one of the person .195** .222** .256** .249** .254** .242**
to whom I offer it
Q9.6 I am unable to say which luxury brands are compliant .078* .159** .129** .132** .153** .126**
Q9.7 Because of the small quantities they produce, luxury brands have a limited impact on .339** .287** .297** .236** .288** .288**
the ecological or social environment
Q9.13 Luxury and sustainable development are contradictory .326** .272** .273** .303** .137** .277**
R2 .476 .467 .435 .384 .244 .417

For each generation, columns represent the standardized regression of different motivations on the dependent variable (normalized beta signifi-
cance: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05)

millennials: among them, the figure is more balanced
with the high price of luxury creating strong expecta-
tions (ß = .277) at parity with sustainability as new chic
(ß = .264) and the idea that luxury brands should be
exemplary on all accounts (ß = .226). Generation X-ers
(35–49) motivations are close to those of late millenni-
als. Baby boomers’ sensitivity is mostly due to new chic
motivation: unexpectedly, this group actually exhibits the
highest weight for this new chic motivation (ß = .409).
When one looks at the table line by line, “considering
that luxury brands should be exemplary on all accounts”
sees its importance grow with age. This argument is the
lowest among the 18–24 and the highest among the sen-
iors. The same holds true for the high price argument:
one should be all the most exacting as luxury brands
charge very high prices. Finally, the youngest respond-
ents excepted (ß = .214), and no other age group is con-
sidering the argument according to which, luxury mean-
ing the highest quality, one should legitimately expect
compliance with sustainability standards from the luxury
brands (Global ß = .035).
• Regarding the disengagement motivations, there is less
variance between generations: the global hierarchy (col-
umn 6) is quite representative. Yet some differences are
striking. On the whole, H4A, H4B and H4C are con-
firmed but only for the youngest millennials. Looking
at the youngest consumers among the millennials, they
justify their disengagement level first of all by their
acknowledgement that luxury produces too few products
to really have any significant impact on the environment
(ß = .339). Their second motivation, close to the former,
is their belief that luxury and sustainability are indeed
contradictory (ß = . 326). But their disengagement is
not based on not knowing what brands are sustainable
(ß = .078). Comparing the weights across ages, their first
two motivations stand out far above that of luxury buyers
of all ages. On the contrary, these youngest millennials
are those who use the least the argument of not knowing
what brands are sustainable, compared to other genera-
tions and even the oldest millennials.
Are millennials’ opinions homogeneous
across countries?
Tables 6 and 7 address the question of the generalizability
of findings from one country to another. The former results
were based on pooled data, across all six countries. Now
Hypothesis 5 posits that millennials’ opinions should stand
out as extreme in each of these six countries: the acute issue
of the contradiction between luxury and sustainability was
chosen as most symbolic.
It is interesting to look at the mean belief of each age
group to the opinion “Luxury and sustainable development
are contradictory” (Likert scale from 1 to 10) in Table 6.
Millennials (both cohorts here) stand out as most convinced
that luxury and sustainability are fundamentally contra-
dictory, across countries. In fact, the perception of this
 Author's personal copy
J.-N. Kapferer, A. Michaut-Denizeau

Table 6 Perceived contradiction N All countries France USA China Brazil Germany Japan
between luxury and
sustainability, within countries, 65–75 390 4.89a 4.62a 5.52a 5.16a 4.45a 4.96a 4.47a
across generations: millennials
50–65 582 5.25b 5.16a,b 5.64a 5.28a 5.35a,b 5.17a 5a,b
are the most critical
35–49 707 5.55c 5.48b 6.55b 5.31a 5.43a,b 5.55a 5.21b
25–34 919 5.91d 5.73b 6.69b 5.72a 6.04b 5.82a 5.65b
18–24 462 5.75c,d 5.58b 6.58b 5.55a 5.86b 5.72a 5.45b

In each column, findings sharing the same superscript are not significantly different at α < 0.05 (SNK test)

Table 7 Perceived N 18–24 25–34 All millennials 35–49 50–64 65–75

contradiction between luxury
and sustainability, within China 672 5.31a 5.65a 5.59a 5.16a 4.96a 4.45a
generations across countries:
Japan 461 5.45a 5.72a 5.60a 5.21a 5.00a 4.47a
The USA are the most critical
France 533 5.58a 5.73a 5.66a 5.35a 5.16a 4.62a
Germany 512 5.72a 5.82a 5.78a 5.35a 5.28a 5.17a
Brazil 538 5.86a 6.04a,b 5.98a 5.35a 5.43a 5.52a
USA 501 6.69b 6.55b 6.59b 6.58b 5.64a 5.55a

In each column, findings sharing the same superscript are not significantly different at α < 0.05 (SNK test)

contradiction is inversely correlated to age (65–75: 4.89;
50–65: 5.25; 35–49: 5.55; 18–24: 5.75; 25–34: 5.91). This
might explain why millennials are so disengaged, compared
to all other age groups (Table 4). For them, by essence lux-
ury cannot be sustainable: hence, why bother about sustain-
ability at the time of purchase?
Looking at Table 6, column per column, that is country
per country, H5 is validated: in each country, millennials
remain indeed those who consider the most, compared to
all other generations that luxury and sustainability are con-
tradictory. This is a global fact.
Table 7 analyzes the homogeneity of the perception of
each generation per country, as far as the contradiction
between luxury and sustainability is concerned. H6 is vali-
dated: on the whole, there are few differences from a country
to another. However, when there is one, it concerns the USA:
for each generation, the contradiction is seen as higher in
the USA.
Implications
On a theoretical basis, this research confirms that luxury
consumer behavior is indeed specific. Since luxuries are not
necessities but indulgences that one allows to oneself, the
rules governing standard purchases may not extend to this
specific domain. The seven reported sustainable actions (in
the daily life) were hardly correlated with sustainable sen-
sitivity at the time of a luxury purchase. Luxury seems to
be that parenthesis of pleasure where the difficulties of the
world are put aside for a short while.
Another important finding is that millennials are too
vague a group: it needs to be separated in two subgroups: the
youngest and the oldest. In our results, the results by cohort
diverged too often to consider millennials as a homogeneous
group. In fact, those born in 1991 and those born 10 years
after have not lived in the same environment, at least eco-
nomically and technologically, with the pace of innovations
getting faster. Also, the urgency of a world answer to the
challenges of preserving the planet gets more perceived as
time passes.
A third outcome is that alarmist predictions that millen-
nials would change the luxury market need more evidence
before they are accepted as true. Indeed, as far as sustainabil-
ity is concerned when buying a luxury product, millennials
are not what they are said to be by commentators and medias
(Danziger 2015; Forbes 2017). The latter seem to be echo-
ing each other, thus creating a rumor effect by the virtue of
mere repetition from different sources. As far as their actual
luxury purchasing is concerned, sustainability is not a salient
concern for millennials: their sensitivity to these issues is
not different from that of older generations (Table 4). Now,
this would not prevent them from reacting emotionally with
anger if a luxury company was shown to misbehave. The
higher the trust in the overall excellence of luxury brands,
the higher the disillusion, frustration and aggressivity. Sen-
sitivity is latent but could become very active in such a case.
Another paradoxical finding is that millennials are the
more disengaged group vis à vis sustainability at the time
of purchase. Again, this is at odds with what most experts
predicted (Taylor 2016). This does not mean that millennials
do not voice generally positive attitudes about sustainability:
after all, the fate of the planet is now in their hands, it is
 Author's personal copy
Are millennials really more sensitive to sustainable luxury? A cross-generational…
their world. It just means that product certifications such as
“positive luxury,” “responsive luxury” or “ethical luxury”
are surely interesting, but they fail to be impactful during
the highly emotional parenthesis of pleasure that luxury pur-
chases represent. Why bother for so rare purchases, so small
quantities? Also, the high price paid leads to assume that
luxury brands are irreproachable 360°, unlike fast fashion
and mass products in general. The findings of this research
echo those of environmental researchers showing that “green
consumerism” does not lead ipso facto to sustainable con-
sumption and alternative behaviors (Hurth 2010; Akenji
2014; Chen et al. 2016).
Another key result is that, among luxury buyers, millenni-
als are actually those who consider the most that luxury and
sustainability are contradictory. This result is valid across
all six countries, thus giving support to the idea that there is
indeed a global “millennial attitude,” beyond country bound-
aries and cultures. That does not prevent them from buying
luxury, but they assume the contradiction. Some researchers
(Dawar 2016) have emitted doubts about concepts such as
“millennials” or “X-ers”: they would be marketing gimmicks
whose purpose is to focus the business people’s attention
on newness. Looking at the homogeneity of responses by
generation in the six countries, one cannot adopt this vision
but recommend at least to distinguish two cohorts within
that broad category.
On practical grounds, unlike what experts and media pre-
tend, this research reveals that millennials are not a threat for
the luxury brands: they have a normal sensitivity to sustain-
ability when buying luxury and are actually quite disengaged
if not cynical: sustainability is not at the front of their minds
when buying luxury. This does not mean that luxury brands
should not engage in sustainable acts, at the corporate level
and at the brand level (Amatulli et al. 2017). If the luxury
sector wants to be exemplar, it needs to engage sustainable
actions proactively. It is a matter of ethics and leadership.
Luxury buyers’ indolence is largely based on the assumption
that luxury brands are actually taking care of all: it is in the
price of their alleged excellence. Thus, one should not take
the risk of disconfirming these public assumptions. Luxury
brands have too much to lose: their reputation is worth gold
for it commands their price premium, public desirability and
legitimacy in a world becoming more and more unequal.
However, no sector can accept to be perceived as structur-
ally contradictory with sustainability. No sector can remain
out of the future. The question here goes far beyond the mere
generalization of led lights in the flasghip stores or re-plant-
ing trees in Africa. This contradiction relates to the roots of
each concept. It is a fact that luxury, since its oldest history,
is linked to vertical social stratification, to social competition,
self-positioning and to conspicuous consumption. There is no
success without signs of success. The expansion of the luxury
market today is a consequence of world economic growth and
a symbol of our materialistic oriented society where happi-
ness is measured by possessions or distinctive experiences,
not affordable to all. No surprise that China is both becom-
ing the No 1 luxury market in the world and also the country
holding most materialistic values (Ipsos 2013). This source of
luxury attractiveness contradicts the values of sustainability
which include sharing, cooperation, social harmony, ascetism
and less possessing. The danger has been already considered
by major luxury groups. Hence, their massive investments in
two directions: the “artification” of luxury, transformation of
non-art into art (Kapferer 2014) and the “craftization,” remak-
ing salient that this remains a business of hand made (even
partially) highly crafted products and services (Hennigs et al.
2013). Of course, the bigger the brands, the more this second
route is difficult to believe. Yet luxury brands should never
abandon their aspiration to represent the parangon of excel-
lence, high quality, a world apart. After all, luxury has always
proclaimed its mission of transmission (heritage, know how,
durability of the products, high quality that lasts…). Luxury
needs to extend its mission from a micro to a macro‐perspec-
tive: contributing to transmit a better planet too.
Limitations of the research
Unlike many academic studies on luxury, based on con-
venience samples or students, this research concentrates on
actual luxury purchasers, beyond a price threshold, from six
countries, Asian and Western, developed or emerging. Para-
doxically, this strength could also be its limitation. One could
oppose that real green consumerists do not buy luxuries any-
more. Luxury is too far from the sharing and circular econ-
omy. By focusing on actual luxury buyers, this study probably
selected people who are not green activists. If sustainability
concerns were growing in the general population, the risk is
that it might erode the primary demand for luxury goods and
experiences. Luxury buyers would feel under the pressure of
public opinion. Yet a remark can be made which alleviates
that risk: as shown by Hurth (2010), an affluent green‐oriented
consumer has to choose between two facets of his/her identity
(affluent and green). In terms of sustainability, the best would
be either to have no car or to buy a small electric one. Now, as
most luxury car marques propose an hybrid or electric alter-
native, the affluent can still indulge buying a luxury car, but a
green version, not so much to save gazoline, but because green
conspicuousness is a sign of being avant-garde (Griskevicius
et al. 2010).
References
Achabou, M.A., and S. Dekhili. 2013. Luxury and sustainable devel-
opment: Is there a match? Journal of Business Research 66(10):
1896–1903.
 Author's personal copy
Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predict-
ing social behavior. London: Pearson Ed.
Akenji, L. 2014. Consumer scapegoatism and limits to green consum-
erism. Journal of Cleaner Production 63: 13–23.
Amatulli, C., A. De Angelis, M. Costabile, and G. Guido. 2017. Sus-
tainable luxury brands evidence from research and implications
for managers. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bain. 2016. The millennials state of mind. Milano: Bain Media Pack.
Bain. 2019. The luxury market worldwide. Milano: Report to the Alt-
agamma Foundazione.
Belk, R. 1985. Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material
world. Journal of Consumer Research 12(3): 265–280.
Bendell, J., and A. Kleanthous. 2007. Deeper luxury report. London:
WWF.
Brundtland Report. 1987. “Our Common Future”—United Nations
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED).
Carcano, L. 2013. Strategic management and sustainability in luxury
companies. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 52: 36–54.
Carrigan, M., and A. Attalla. 2001. The myth of the ethical consumer:
Do ethics matter in purchase behavior? Journal of Consumer Mar-
keting 18(7): 560–578.
Cervellon, M.-C., and L. Shammas. 2013a. Conspicuous conservation.
International Journal of Marketing Research 55(5): 695–717.
Cervellon, M.-C., and L. Shammas. 2013b. The value of sustainable
luxury in mature markets. Journal of corporate citizenship 52:
90–101.
Chen, X., J. de la Rosa, M. Peterson, Y. Zhong, and C. Lu. 2016. Sym-
pathy for the environment predicts green consumerism but not
more important environmental behaviours related to domestic
energy use. Environmental Conservation 43(2): 140–147.
Currid, Halkett E. 2017. The sum of small things: Theory of the aspi-
rational class. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Danziger, P. 2015. Millennials and their luxury aspirations. New York:
Unity Marketing Report.
Davies, I., Z. Lee, and I. Ahonkhai. 2012. Do consumers care about
ethical luxury? Journal of Business Ethics 106(1): 37–51.
Dawar, N. 2016. Labels like “millennial” and “boomer” are obsolete.
Harvard Business Review 11(18/2016): 2–4.
Dekhili, S., and M.A. Achabou. 2016. Luxe et développement durable:
Quelles sources de dissonance. Décisions Marketing 83: 97–121.
Deloitte. 2017. Millennials and Luxury. Internal Report, London, UK.
Dubois, B., and C. Paternault. 1995. Observations: Understanding the
world of international luxury brands: The “dream formula”. Jour-
nal of Advertising Research 35(4): 69–76.
Eastman, J., and L. Jun. 2012. The impact of generational cohorts on
status consumption: An exploratory look at generational cohort
and demographics. Journal of Consumer Marketing 29(2):
92–102.
Ehrich, Kristine R., and Julie R. Irwin. 2005. Willful ignorance in the
request for product attribute information. Journal of Marketing
Research 42(3): 266–277.
Eisen, D. 2011. Millennials: The next wave of luxury spenders. Travel
Agent 338(12): 10.
Forbes. 2017. How millennials will reshape luxury markets. In, ed. by
M. Solomon, June 20th, www.forbes.com.
Fromm, J., and C. Garton. 2013. Marketing to millennials. New York:
Amacom ed.
Gil, L., K.-N. Kwon, L. Good, and L. Johnson. 2012. Impact of self
on attitudes toward luxury brands among teenagers. Journal of
Business Research 65: 1425–1433.
Godin, S. 2009. Luxury vs premium. Chicogo: Seths Blog. May 17.
Griskevicius, V., J.M. Tybur, and B. Van den Bergh. 2010. Going
green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conserva-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98(3): 392.
Heine, K. 2011. The concept of luxury brands. Berlin: Technische
Universitât.
J.-N. Kapferer, A. Michaut-Denizeau
Hennigs, N., K.-P. Wiedman, C. Klarman, and S. Behrens. 2013. Sus-
tainability as part of luxury essence. Journal of Corporate Citi-
zenship 52: 25–35.
Hurth, V. 2010. Creating sustainable identities: The significance of the
financially affluent self. Sustainable Development 18(3): 123–134.
Hwang, J., and M. Griffiths. 2017. Share more and drive less: Millen-
nials value perception and behavioral intent in using collabora-
tive consumption services. Journal of Consumer Marketing 34(2):
132–146.
Ipsos. 2013. The materialism survey: A comparison of 20 countries.
Paris: Ipsos.
Ipsos. 2015. Affluent survey. Paris: Ipsos.
Joergens, C. 2006. Ethical fashion: Myth. Or future trend? Journal of
Fashion Marketing Management. 10(3): 360–371.
Joy, A., J.-F. Sherry, A. Venkatesh, J. Wang, and R. Chan. 2012. Fast
fashion, sustainability and the ethical appeal of luxury brands.
Fashion Theory 16(3): 273–296.
Kahneman, D. 2012. Thinking fast and slow. London: Penguin Books.
Kapferer, J.N. 2010. All that glitters is not green: The challenge of
sustainable luxury. The European Business Review 40–45.
Kapferer, J.-N. 2014. The artification of luxury: From artisans to artists.
Business Horizons 57: 371–380.
Kapferer, J.-N., and V. Bastien. 2012. The luxury strategy: Break the
rules of marketing to build luxury brands. London: Kogan Page.
Kapferer, J.-N., and G. Laurent. 2016. Where do consumers think lux-
ury begins? A study of perceived minimum price for 21 luxury
goods in 7 countries. Journal of Business Research 69: 332–340.
Kapferer, J.-N., and A. Michaut. 2014. Is luxury compatible with sus-
tainable development: Luxury consumers’ viewpoint. Journal of
Brand Management 21(1): 1–22.
Kapferer, J.-N., and A. Michaut. 2015a. Luxury and sustainability: A
common future? The match depends on how consumers define
luxury. Luxury Research Journal 1(1): 1–15.
Kapferer, J.-N., and A. Michaut. 2015b. Are luxury purchasers really
insensitive to sustainable development? New insights from
research. In Sustainable Luxury, ed. M.A. Gardetti and A.L. Tor-
res, 94–108. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.
Kilbourne, W., and B. Pickett. 2008. How materialism affects environ-
mental beliefs, concerns and environmentally responsible behav-
ior. Journal of Business Research 61(9): 885–893.
Kozinets, R., and J.M. Handelman. 2004. Adversaries of consump-
tion: Consumer movements, activism, and ideology. Journal of
Consumer Research 31(3): 691–703.
Lochard, C., and A. Murat. 2011. Luxe et développement durable.
Paris: Eyrolles.
Lu, L., D. Bock, and M. Joseph. 2013. Green marketing: What the mil-
lenials buy. Journal of Business Strategy 34(6): 3–10.
Markert, J. 2004. Demographics of age: Generational and cohort con-
fusion. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising
26(2): 11–25.
Marticotte, F. 2018. Why millennials hate some luxury brands. In
Research paper presented at the LVMH-SMU Luxury Conference,
Singapore, May 11–12.
Rolling. V. and A. Sodochar. 2017. Are sustainable luxury goods a
paradox for milllenials. In Global fashion management Confer-
ence, Vienna, Proceedings, July, pp 100–101.
Satter, M.Y. 2015. Who is the affluent generation now? Benefits.Sell.
Break.News.com.
Schade, M., S. Hegner, F. Horstmann, and N. Brinkman. 2016. The
impact of attitude functions on luxury brand consumption: An
aged-based group comparison. Journal of Business Research
69(1): 314–322.
Schröder, J., and M. Salzer-Mörling. 2006. Brand culture. London:
Routledge.
Shrum, L.J., N. Wong, F. Arif, S.K. Chugari, A. Gunz, T.M. Lowrey,
A. Nairn, M. Pandelaere, S. Ross, A.A. Ruvio, K. Scott, and J.
 Author's personal copy
Are millennials really more sensitive to sustainable luxury? A cross-generational…
Sundie. 2013. Reconceptualizing materialism as identity goal pur-
suits. Journal of Business Research 66(8): 1179–1185.
Strauss, W., and N. Howe. 1991. Generations: The history of America’s
future, 1584 to 2069 . New York: Harper Perennial.
Strizhakova, Y., and R. Coulter. 2013. The green side of materialism
in emerging BRIC and developed markets. International Journal
of Research in Marketing 30(1): 69–82.
Sun, G., W. Wang, Z. Cheng, J. Li, and J. Chen. 2016. The intermedi-
ate linkage between materialism and luxury. Social Indicators
Research 132: 475–487.
Taylor, P. 2016. Next America. New York: Public Affairs Editions.
Valentine, D.B., and T.L. Powers. 2013. Generation Y values and life-
style segments. Journal of Consumer Marketing 30(7): 597–606.
Voyer, B.G., and D. Beckham. 2014. Can sustainability be luxurious?
Advances in Consumer Research Conference Proceedings 42:
245–250.
Winston, A. 2017. An inside view of how LVMH makes luxury more
sustainable, Harvard Business Review, January 11.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Jean-Noël Kapferer is an internationally renowned authority on luxury.
PhD Kellogg Business School (USA), HEC emeritus professor, he now
conducts his research on luxury at INSEEC School of Business and
Economics. Co-author of the book The Luxury Strategy: Break the
Rules of Marketing to Build Luxury Brands and Advances in Luxury
Brand Management, author of How Luxury Brands Can Grow yet
Remain Rare, JN Kapferer leads executive seminars all around the
world.
Anne Michaut-Denizeau is Associate Professor of Marketing, Direc-
tor of the LVMH chair and Associate Dean for Pedagogy at HEC
Paris. PhD in Social Sciences from Wageningen University, where she
received an MSc degree in Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, she
holds also an agronomics engineering degree. Her research focuses on
luxury, specifically new developments in client experience as well as
sustainability issues.