Analysis of the interviews

To what extent do you think it is possible to differentiate the raw material (synthetic fur instead of real)

BetweenGroups 24,933 4 6,233 3,767 ,007

WithinGroups 157,177 95 1,654

Total

182,110 99 Differentiation of the

raw material should be a choice of the companies and not to be imposed by Law

BetweenGroups 36,018 4 9,004 3,611 ,009

WithinGroups 236,892 95 2,494

Total

272,910 99 Differation of raw

material (synthetic fur instead of real fur) will benefit the industry in the long run

BetweenGroups 15,606 4 3,901 5,870 ,000

WithinGroups 63,144 95 ,665

Total

78,750 99

Table 6.5.6 Anova test between differentiation of raw material and the years in fur industry

“It means jobs for about 1,200-1,500 employees, who are highly tied to the industry.

Which means that when the fur goes well there is financial activity in the area, when not, in our area there is absolute nothing”

The opinion of P2 is the same, as according to him

“The fur industry is primarily the largest business, employing more than 60% of the businesses indirectly (with emphasis) and directly. It's not just the processing of the fur, it's the farms and it's all the circuit that is around the fur, customs agents, accountants, raw materials, transportation, security, accountants so we are talking about a wide range of professionals and employees. Industry from breeding to the sale of the product, offers jobs to more than 5000 people. So it was and still is, despite the crisis, the basic business employment in Kastoria.”

In this point the researcher asked whether this number includes the region of Siatista, and P2 clarified that this numbers is only about Kastoria, as

“…if we include Siatista what we should add a 20% for Siatista. …Well, in the past, the industry was very important and continues even today, despite the difficulties of economy Yes, the difference with the past times is that we had a much larger number of companies, now we have smaller ones, but production volumes are much higher than in the past.”

There was not much difference in what P3 stated. He also pointed out that during the past it was the most important sector for the economy and development of both Kastoria and the region of Voio. Although “currently, there is in a continuous downward trend, but still holds an important role, but not a primary one, as both tourism and agriculture are increasingly occupying workers, mainly in Kastoria.”

The second question was “I would like you to tell me to what extent the industry has contributed to the development of the area”.

The contribution of the fur sector is highlighted by all three participants. Specifically, P1 stated that

“The fur industry has contributed very much, because from 1960 and onwards it was the industry that monopolized the employment of the largest percentage of the population. Wages were very high in the industry and was an important reason why

people from neighboring areas and prefectures came to Kastoria to make their fortune by opening new shops, cafes and nightclubs. We can say that for those years Kastoria could be considered a small Monte Carlo. According to P2 “It is a difficult question” adding that “…all these years, over time, from the post-colonial period and earlier, (fur industry) contributes to the GDP of the region more than 60 to 70%.”.

P2 points out a critical point. As for decades the main, if not sole, economic activity in the area is related to fur,

“we are not able to know, in terms of development, what other investment and economical activities were not developed equally because of the almost exclusive occupancy with fur…maybe tourism or the agricultural sector did not develop as much as they should.”

Another important aspect is that despite the fact that fur industry

“…has contributed the maximum to GDP, but in terms of development, it was probably a brake on the agricultural sector and tourism. In other words, if it were not for the fur, other sectors would have much larger growth.”

According to P3,

“The fur industry was very large, estimated to be close to 90%, and the main source of income in the area. As a center of fur, the city of Kastoria became one of the most important economic centers of the country, with a number of exported products and very significant amounts of foreign exchange coming to Greece, mainly from Germany, the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. As a result, many small shops opened, either for entertainment, catering, or fur, resulting in several new jobs during the 60s to early 90s. Kastoria and Voio also began to grow in population, as young people entered in this job at a very young age and did not become internal migrants.

Here we can say that the only negative was that due to the rise of the industry, there were very few who had been properly educated, since quite often the children followed only the compulsory education and then began to learn the art of fur.”

The last statement is very important as, according to P3, fur industry was a key factor for economic development, but also did not left any space for different kind of development.

The next question was “In your opinion, what percentage of the inhabitants of the area depend directly or indirectly on the fur industry?”

All the participants agree that fur industry is the main chance for job for many people.

Specifically, P1 stated that

“In addition to the workers working in the fur workshops, there are a fairly large number of companies and services that are highly dependent on the mobility of the fur. Such businesses are tanneries, washing machines, fur shops, etc. but also services such as accounting, insurers, customs brokers, couriers, etc.”

P2 estimated that 60% of people in Kastoria are related with fur industry and according to P3, currently

“the percentage of employees and subsidiaries around the industry is estimated to represent almost 20% of the workforce. Due to the degradation of the industry, almost all the neighboring workshops, that were the backbone of the workers in the previous years, have closed, several large fur shops have reduced the production resulting in reduction of workforce. As a result, young people very rarely learn the art of the craftsman and preffered to leave for other cities or even countries, and mostly workers are aged between 45-50 years old and above, as it becomes an

“aging” profession. This place that once, almost exclusively,was based on fur, now tends to follow other professional footsteps, as most of the cities in Greece, such as tourism, services and catering.”

In order to understand the importance of fur industry for the economy of the region, the next question was “In your opinion, what percentage of the region's economy is represented by the companies directly related to the fur industry?” According to P1, the situation in the past was much different than in present. Specifically

“In the past, I believe there was a percentage of more than 50% who were involved in the fur industry, from the neighboring workshopsall the way to very large ones. In recent years, only a few large companies have survived, giving job to the number of employees mentioned earlier, 1,200-1,500 employees in Kastoria and Voio.”

According to P2, about 45% to 50%, of the region’s economy activity is directly or indirectly related to fur industry, adding that currently “3700 businesses are registered, of

which 1600 are only fur factories… therefore…. It is about 45%” . These companies are, beyond the fur shops,

“…about 1100 businesses are manufacturing, that is, they make coats, about 80 companies deal with breeding, we have around 5 to 6 companies that have to do with painting and tanneries, around 10 companies that have to do with cleaning furs, 5 or 6 companies that have to do with fur materials, and besides that you have to add another 400 companies like, customs agents, accountants and couriers that in a very large percentage, have clients from the fur industry…there are transport companies that deal exclusively with fur.”

According to P3, “the companies directly connected with the fur industry are the companies with the production workshops (fur shops), the few showrooms that are left (usually with leather coats), the shops with sewing and packaging materials, the fur farms etc. All of them now are about 5-10% only for the city of Kastoria and Voio (Siatista).”

The next question was “Do you think that industry is able to withstand an environment that changes so unpredictably and abruptly (financial crisis, reactions from animal welfare organizations, pandemic and in particular the killing of diseased animals)?”

P1 agreed that fur industry is constantly facing problems. Specifically, his answer was

“Our industry is constantly facing problems, that is the truth. After the pandemic, the areas where we are most active, namely the countries of the former Soviet Union, have suffered greatly, and with the devaluation of the ruble and the sharp rise in commodity prices, the consumer potential of those markets has stopped spending. The fur industry will not be able to withstand much longer under such conditions and we estimate that in the next 2-3 years if there is no significant improvement in the situation we will be in a very difficult position. On the part of animal welfare organizations there is a constant negative climate, so far the pressure is not so great and their influence in the markets that we have been active in recent years haven’t affected as much.”

P2 believes that fur industry is able to withstand all these situations, adding that

“I know this, why it's something known in advance, and in terms of what happened in Denmark (refers to the killing of animals due to COVID-19)…, it was not good

for world trade to hear that the largest producer of furskins is out of the market, but on the other hand the immediate results were that the prices of skins were doubled after that, ie in the next auctions the price were doubled and with very increasing trends, so essentially for the Greek farmers that was something very good.”

P2 also added that the industry is able to withstand all these situations not in the financial sizes that existed in the past, “…but that there exists a market and it will last.”. Also, according to P3

“Ιt will be very difficult for the industry to cope with the continuous developments in the western world, mainly due to the movements of animal welfare and ecological organizations. The trends of time, to consume alternative forms of energy, food and clothing. The fur product from a clothing of prestige, fashion, but also a need in very cold climates, is now, perhaps, for most people outdated / old-fashioned but also possibly provocative. I believe that the fur industry is about to last another decade, with the pace of the global community and no new markets in the horizon.”

The next question regarded thoughts to be done. Specifically, the question was “Do you think that the industry has reached a point where it will have to redefine its position regarding raw materials and in general the promotion of products in both the domestic and foreign markets?”

P2 believes that this is not necessary, adding

“I do not believe that there can be an increase in the domestic market due to climate conditions but also due to the fact that the ecology movement has greatly influenced Greece. So I believe that efforts should continue abroad. Beyond that for the change of raw materials, no, I believe that natural fur should be preserved. Well, if you ask me, a personal point of view, maybe the product should change a bit, that is, from the very sophisticated and one-piece coat to turn into some product lighter, a combination with, let’s say fur clothes, fur fabric, something… something lighter and cheaper. But as for the raw material no, we insist on natural fur. Regarding the domestic market, does it seem difficult for the Greek consumer to respond to the purchase of a natural fur? Not because, I think it is not a matter of price, anyway the fur is addressed by an income criteria and above, it is not addressed to much lower popular strata. I think the bet for the region is not to produce very cheap fur, instead

it is to find customers who have better incomes. In other words, I would not rely on a market that has a very low cost. In any case,fur should remain a kind of luxury.”

The necessity for changes is also highlighted by P3. Specifically, his answer was:

“As difficult as it is to keep the fur industry at a high level, it is just as difficult to change the raw material in garment production. First of all, there is no appropriate infrastructure in technological level and also in labor force. Domestically it will be very difficult to sell a product like fur (even with synthetic raw material and not natural one) due to the mild temperatures and in cold climates people do not use this kind of clothing. Also in foreign markets it will be extremely difficult to challenge the very low cost production of China and the huge amount of its exports.”

According to P1, it is not easy to proceed in changes in the sector, as the sector functions this way for centuries, while the risk is very high. Specifically, his answer was

“Currently nothing can change in the structure of the fur industry because it is a traditional art, with an ecological character. Such an endeavor could only be done by very few and with enormous risk, because you are completely changing industry, activity and pricing policies. You need to "dismantle" almost the entire core of the business, maintaining only the brand name. New suppliers, new market openings, most unknown to us, changes in many worker positions, resulting in increased unemployment, because of the 10-15 people needed to make a fur coat, respectively you may need to employ 4-5, as more machines than men will be needed then. So we are talking about uncharted waters, with large investment amounts and a risk that you do not know if it will bring the expected results.”

P2 was clearly negative to such perspective as people who want synthetic consist a consumer audience “that is indifferent to us”, adding that

“A consumer of natural fur would not prefer synthetic. In other words, he considers it a cheap substitute, so I do not think he would want it.”

The reasons for that are

“First of all it is clearly higher quality… Secondly, natural fur is more ecological because natural fur is biodegradable while the substitutes are plastics which decompose after tens of thousands of years so (…), we are talking about ecology,

natural products are more ecological. These two I think are the reasons. I do not think that a person who is accustomed to a good product wants to replace it with a product that is a synthetic substitute. Unless for financial reasons.”

In the next question the researcher wondered whether new material would be more accepted by consumers. Specifically, the question was“Do you think consumers would want something different from industry companies, such as alternative raw materials?”

P1 seems that this is not possible, stating that

“I do not believe that there can be an alternative raw material on a large scale.

There are two main categories, farm animals and wildlife ones found in nature.

There is no way the plastic substitute can replace natural fur, one is a derivative of oil, which, whether we want to accept it or not, does enormous damage to the natural environment. So we can not talk about ecological products. On the other hand, natural fur is biodegradable, ecological and offers clearly better protection at very low temperatures. Consumers who would like to change the raw material do so purely from an idealistic point of view and would not buy such products, while many consumers who prefer natural products do so in order to protect themselves from extreme environmental conditions.”

According to P3,

“Nowadays it is true that most people, ideologically, would say that they prefer an alternative way of making coats and cardigans, even if for themselves they prefer natural fur. Probably the last ones who prefer natural leather are the consumers of the still active markets, China, Russia (and the other countries of the former Soviet Union, for example Ukraine) and the U.S.A. (in more limited cases now). But always, even if the use of fur is banned, there will be even in a very small percentage of consumers, the one who will look for natural skins, either for the premium feeling (handmade, durable, natural color), or for the quality, but also for the reason that they just like the idea that it is real leather.”

The next question focused on the role of the State. Specifically, the question was “Do you think that the State should support the industry in an effort to move to a new era and if so how?”

As P1 thinks that there is not possible to change the philosophy of fur sector, he states there is not nothing to be done towards this direction. Specifically, his answer was “As we have said before, at the moment we have this conversation, there can be no transition of the fur companies to an era of synthetic fabric, in the same category of clothes, as this is not clear that will assist the sector.”

P2 believes that industry needs a transition, but not in raw materials, adding that

“… the industry clearly needs a transition in order to get well once again, (but)

…there is no need for a transition oriented towards a different raw material, that is, synthetic. The industry has to make interventions and transition… in terms of certification, in terms of research and technology, in terms of innovation and in terms of extroversion, which are the areas that we believe should be supported by the State.”

In this point the researcher asked P2 “…so you're telling me that the State should support fur and not an alternative synthetic coat industry?” whose answer was clearly positive.

On the other hand, P3 argued that “…there is nothing the state can do to help fur industry to handle the changes.”

In next question a potential scenario is presented by the researcher. Specifically, the question was “If we assume that tomorrow the European Union, of which Greece is a Member State, legislates against the killing of animals for the purpose of exploiting their fur, I would like you to tell me what this would mean for the industry and the region in general.”

The answer of P1 was clear, stating that such a decision might lead to huge problems, not only in the fur sector, but also in the whole region.

“Such a thing would mean the end of the industry in my opinion, the prefecture of Kastoria and the wider area will have to find alternative occupations and activities in order to be able to stay on its feet, with the tourism industry and agriculture may be a way out for the younger onesbut for the older ones, since most of our craftsmen are aged 45 and over, this may mean long-term unemployment. Specifically for companies if this law only applied to Europe, they would probably move their headquarters to third countries, outside the EU, and of course their commercial activities. I guess some of the staff would follow, so we are talking about possible