JBR-09206; No of Pages 7

Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Toward a general theory of luxury: Advancing from workbench definitions and

theoretical transformations
Hélène Cristini a,⁎, Hannele Kauppinen-Räisänen a,b,⁎⁎, Mireille Barthod-Prothade c, Arch Woodside d
a
International University of Monaco, Groupe INSEEC, Monaco
b
University of Vaasa, Finland
c
INSEEC Alpes Savoie, Groupe INSEEC, 12 Avenue du Lac d'Annecy, Savoie Technolac, 73370 Le Bourget du Lac, France
d
INSEEC Research Center, International University of Monaco, Groupe INSEEC, 2 Avenue Albert II, 98000 Monaco, Monaco

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study focuses on luxury, an intrinsic part of civilized society that historically reveals insights regarding the
Received 1 May 2016 societal norms and mores. The perception of luxury is in a continuing state of flux due to the changing of
Received in revised form 1 July 2016 many aspects of the economic market. This study takes a critical view on the transformations of luxury through
Accepted 1 July 2016
the ages, examining the perception of luxury through historical, philosophical, and anthropological lenses. While
Available online xxxx
the current views frequently equate luxury with the desire for the superfluous, driven by luxury brands and
Keywords:
endorsed by celebrities, luxury has not always had that role in society. The study here contributes to the body
Anthropology of knowledge by providing a frame for understanding the transformation of luxury from being-to-having and
History owning, and to consumers' search for meaningfulness again via shifting from having-to-being and from
Luxury owning-to-experiencing.
Luxury transformation © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Meaning
Philosophy

1. Introduction to new product groups. Through media innovations, interventions and

Luxury is an enduring and intrinsic part of the society, and therefore
not a new phenomenon. Still, luxury is a representational characteristic
of today's consumption society; luxury in particular features the savvy
consumers, who increasingly desire luxury (Chandon, Laurent, &
Valette-Florence, 2016). One aspect of today's luxury is that luxury
desire is shared among consumers across various countries (Shukla,
Banerjee, & Singh, 2016). The globalization of luxury means that luxury
is becoming increasingly prevalent among new consumers in new
markets, thereby being referred to as the new luxury (e.g. Belk, 1999;
Silverstein & Fiske, 2005; Kapferer & Laurent, 2016; Liu, Perry, Moore,
& Warnaby, 2016). In contrast to the traditional characteristics defining
luxury, the new luxury implies that luxury is no longer too exclusive or
unique, and it is neither too unreachable nor inaccessible any longer
(Silverstein & Fiske, 2005). Hence, the democratization of luxury resulted
in mass luxury, which is very much attached to brands, and these brands
have extended themselves to affordable offerings, while luxury attaches
⁎ Correspondence to: H. Cristini, International University of Monaco, Groupe INSEEC, 2
Avenue Albert II, 98000 Monaco, Monaco.
⁎⁎ Correspondence to: H. Kauppinen-Räisänen, Faculty of Business Studies, Department
of Marketing, University of Vaasa, Wolffintie 34, FI-65200 Vaasa, Finland.
E-mail addresses: hcristini@inseec.com (H. Cristini),
hannele.kauppinen-raisanen@uva.fi (H. Kauppinen-Räisänen), mbarthod@inseec.com
(M. Barthod-Prothade), arch.woodside@inseec.com (A. Woodside).
expansions, media-driven is one aspect of luxury today.
So while many aspects of luxury are transformative (Donzé &
Fujioka, 2015; Llamas & Thomsen, 2016), so are the meanings of luxury.
Previously luxury was about being, sharing and sensing which as the
core values of luxury represented the meaningfulness in life; well-
being of the society through excellence, creativity and exclusivity that
was exposed to everyone representing heirlooms and permanent
wealth (Lipovetsky, 2003; Michaud, 2003; Khalla, 2006). Luxury also
meant conspicuousness, where luxury intrinsically, as an iconic sign,
conveyed status, wealth and power of its user and owner (Llamas &
Thomsen, 2016). Today luxury means worthiness and belonging, and
symbolizes status search (Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012; Zhan & He,
2012; Kauppinen-Räisänen et al., 2014) which imply that luxury very
much serves self-interests—a desire of having, owning and using luxury
being displayed by brands. The fact is that this desire is so captivating
that new forms of business has evolved; firms renting luxury satisfying
the desire of having and using (Zhan & He, 2012).
Today's luxury encompasses a double-faced god like Janus as luxury's
Latin etymology epitomizes—lux as light and luxuria as excess. This
metaphor application indicates that luxury is a buzzword expressible
in fragmented meanings, and its definition is not agreed upon today
(Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012). Prior luxury research contributes with
insights to the product-centric view on luxury meaning, while the current
era of luxury popularization and democratization causes confusion, and
what luxury means today remains unclear (Kapferer, 2012; Kastanakis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.001
0148-2963/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Cristini, H., et al., Toward a general theory of luxury: Advancing from workbench definitions and theoretical
transformations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.001
2 H. Cristini et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
& Balabanis, 2012) and the idea of “Luxury is multi-discursive” as Calefato
(2014, p. 3–4) describes. Therefore, research into luxury meaning is
necessary (Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012) though still leaving out
understanding as to why such fragmented meanings appear. Against
this backdrop, this study contributes to the understanding of the current
challenges attaching to the meaning of luxury and to luxury's transforma-
tive nature. This objective is accomplished by viewing the transforma-
tions of luxury and their meanings through an historical lens taking
philosophical and anthropological turns.
The study builds from the prevailing role of luxury in the Western
European societies. Beside the view on being, sharing, and sensing
versus having, owning, and using luxury, other dichotomies care reveal-
able in the challenge to understand luxury and its meaning: public versus
private (Castarède, 2004; Wilkins, 2008) excellence versus mediocrity
(Hennigs, Wiedmann, Klarmann, & Behren, 2013), artistic creativity
versus profitable creativity (Wilkins, 2008; Hennigs et al., 2013), long-
term versus short-term (Khalla, 2006; Michaud, 2003), and finally, the
opposition of feeding the spirit to pandering the self (Haws & Poynor,
2008).
These oppositions are not exclusive, but they are presented in the
study here to provide insights to the nature of luxury transformation
and to what luxury means today. The selected approach challenges
the view on luxury, which is, “Often taken for granted. [As luxury if
frequently] considered as a clear-cut economic concept” (Mortelmans,
2014, p. 193). Thereby, the study contributes to the understanding of
luxury.
Following this introduction, Section 2 presents a literature review
that focus on the transformations of the meaning and purposes of
luxury. Section 3 describes the demoralization and democratization of
luxury. Section 4 builds from the literature review to describe advances
in luxury theory. Section 5 concludes.
2. Literature review
2.1. Place - from the public place to the private space with public
conspicuousness
A basic approach to luxury has been that luxury serves the common
good. Therefore, the first opposition concerns the transformation of
luxury from something that could be accessed only in the public place
to being limited to the private, yet – in particularly, lately – with a
public, but also private conspicuousness or various degrees of brand
prominence (Han, Nunes, & Drèze, 2010; Patsiaouras & Fitchett, 2012).
Earlier, luxury was perceived as something that should be shared for
the means of common good. For example, Socrates (470–399 BCE)
and Plato (470–347 BCE) stressed that, for the Greeks, luxury is a neces-
sity (Berry, 1994). However, governed by the fear of lust, the need for
control, and the desire of peace and moderation, luxury had to be regu-
lated and limited in order to have a peaceful city with a sense of harmo-
ny where justice prevails (Berry, 1994). While, Plato—referring to the
City of Pigs (370 BCE)—explained that, when there are no limits on
human desires, the city will go wrong and degenerate into a fevered
“truphosa polis” or “appetitive luxurious city” (McKeen, 2004). Aristotle
viewed that life of luxury was an unworthy one, which meant that it
was not meaningful for the good of the society (Berry, 1994).
Having a similar view on luxury, the stoics of Seneca (4 BCE–65 CE)
advocated a simple and free life with only limited needs of the individual
was preferable to one that was immoderate: ‘[a] frugal, simple life had
long chimed in with the asceticism of the early Christians’ (Berry, 1994,
p. 90). Tertullian (160 CE–200 CE), the Christian stoic, wrote in De cultu
feminarum about the necessity of control, and stressed the dangers of
luxurious excess within female dress and fashion (Berry, 1994). As it
appears, the stoics advocated temperance as one cardinal virtues besides
justice, moral strength and wisdom set by Marcus Aurelius (121 CE–
180 CE) (Berry, 1994). While luxury or luxuria, in addition to excess,
Please cite this article as: Cristini, H., et al., Toward a general theory of luxury: Advancing from workbench definitions and theoretical
transformations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.001
meant lust and desire, luxury was mostly limited controlling the tendency
of human desire to go beyond what was needed.
Hence, throughout history, all kinds of sumptuary laws—in the
ancient Greek times, in the Roman era, in the medieval period, in the
Renaissance up until the 17th century—have been the guardians of an
orderly society, where luxury was perceived as a danger to be limited
to a public place (Wilkins, 2008). The reason for these laws was not
only a concern of the common good, but to maintain a certain distinction
between social classes, and also to encourage local luxury products.
After the 17th century, sumptuary laws were reduced considerably;
maintaining them became more and more difficult, while the economic
democratization of European countries also contributed to their demise
(Berry, 1994; Herrero, 1999). The trade increased, and larger segments
of the population were now—not only allowed—but also able to buy
luxury products (MacCants, 2007). Luxury consumption was supported
as it contributed to employment and economic well-being, yet, many of
these indulgent luxuries—custom-made art, clothing, and
jewelry—contributed also to the further separation of social classes,
as the premium prices attached to these luxuries clearly delineated
who could buy luxury products (Sombart, 1967; McCoy, 1980;
MacCants, 2007; Hill, 2012). However, the main change was that luxury
was no longer limited to serve the common good, but allowed to sat-
isfy private—self-serving—needs (Veblen, 1899) as is epitomized with
the “secularization of love” (also called adultery love) in the seven-
teenth century (Sombart, 1967).
Today, luxury exists for the benefit of consumers in their private
space, yet also for public prominence (Young, Nunes, & Drèze, 2010).
The current desire for luxury does not only relate to the inherent
characteristics of the products themselves, but also to the brands and
the images they convey through the brand prominence (Kastanakis &
Balabanis, 2012; Han et al., 2010). Luxury is not that much attached to
what the product is, but what the brand represents (Thomas, 2007;
Han et al., 2010). Hence, consumers may accomplish their quest for
well-being by having, owning, and using luxury brands which provide
fulfillment and the satisfaction of the demand as phrased by L'Oréal's
legendary slogan “Because I'm worth it” (Moeller & Wittkowski, 2010;
Kauppinen-Räisänen et al., 2014) or “feel good”, yet also to “show off”.
If in prior eras, fear of losing control to vice drove the restrictions of
luxury, today's concessions seems to satisfy the craving for pleasure
that is perceived as individual virtue. Today, this desire and the object
of the desire is shared (Llamas & Thomsen, 2016). However, instead of
only desiring the same object—brand—everyone can own the object as
it is multiplied due to the mass-production.
2.2. Quality – from inherently striving at excellence to settling for the
mediocrity
Inherent excellence is one of the core meanings attached to luxury.
Thus, the second pair of opposites exposes the striving at excellence to
the settlement for mediocrity. Excellence means that something is
better than the ordinary; excellence is a quality dimension conveying
superiority, greatness, splendor, magnificence, and potentially even
perfection (e.g. Kauppinen-Räisänen & Grönroos, 2015).
In the ancient Greek times, the prevailing view was that, “Do what
you do well, pay attention to what you are doing” (Castarède, 2004,
p. 91). This view accompanied by a sense of coherence between the
form and the content, encompass the excellence field of luxury. Until
the Renaissance, luxury was the quintessential expression of magnifi-
cence protected by the sumptuary laws in order to serve the common
good (Castarède, 2004).
Just a few decades ago luxury still was an expression of excellence,
which was exclusive and unique, and mirrored—above all—by creative
and tailor-made craftsmanship made of exquisite materials (Thomas,
2007). One iconic example is the Givenchy dress made especially for
Audrey Hepburn for the movie Breakfast at Tiffany's. Today it could be
implied that Hephaestus—the god who makes, who creates—has lost
 H. Cristini et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
some of his influence and the feeling of satisfaction from creating, and
instead Hermes—the god who communicates—has taken over (Meer,
2008). This transformation means that in the current dominating
consumption society, media influences tastes and values, potentially
even reinforcing a short-term consumption aura. This transformation
also implies that the media moderates and molds appetite for mass-
produced luxury brands. Hence, even if excellence might be the object
of the contemporary desire, the challenge is that excellence requires
effort (Kivetz & Simonson, 2002), while it is also being related to com-
mitment and engagement (Kim, Park, Lee, & Choi, 2016; Shukla et al.,
2016). In contradiction to the current ethos, which by taking a critical
view, be describable as being focused on the self, which reveals selfish-
ness and attempts to feed one's own appetite (Sirgy, 1982), excellence
seems miles away. While, one might also claim that the commitment
and involvement is low (low as opposed to high order needs), medioc-
rity will prevail, as such desire is reached by the minimum effort (Belk,
1995).
For example, a marketing campaign for launching a new perfume
costs as much as the planned first-year profit (Thomas, 2007). Luxury
as displayed as creativity in its excellent craftsmanship has yielded to
a technical vision of luxury that is displayed as mass-produced luxury
brands for the masses. Genuine excellent craftsmanship is declining as
opposed to the current mass-produced luxury items. Evidently more
and more luxury brands are purchased (between 1995 and 2012, they
multiplied by seven) in our hedonistic contemporary experience, but
it appears that the nature of the so-called luxury products have changed
too.
2.3. Creativity - from an artistic, tailor-made creation to profitable, mass-
produced creations
Another core meaning characterizing luxury relates to the fact that
luxury has been associated intrinsically with creativity (Lipovetsky,
2003; Michaud, 2003) which earlier was portrayed by unique, custom-
made creations. As luxury was an expression of magnificence and
protected by the sumptuary laws (Castarède, 2004), it was in these
specific circumstances deemed to be creative. Thereby, luxury was
represented by and expressed through creations like monuments,
public squares and fountains for the means of public splendor
(Lipovetsky, 2003; Michaud, 2013).
The current technical reproduction of luxury is today indulged by
mass-produced brands and epitomized by the luxurious brand image
(Atwal & Williams, 2009). A critical stance could claim that the mean-
ingfulness of form and content—if not been replaced—has changed
due to the appetite for experiences vaporizing some of the intrinsic
meanings of luxury (Atwal & Williams, 2009; Dunderberg, 2013) like
excellence, creativity, and exclusivity. For example, although perfumes
may be expressed in creative and innovative designs, they are hardly
genuine or evidences of exclusive and unique craftsmanship—haute
couture of olfactory art—anymore. Instead they are represented by
mass-produced brands that are mostly made of synthetic fragrances,
which thought may be perceived to be an evidence of innovativeness
and creative communicators. However, in this context, the natural and
authentic perfume has been replaced by something synthetic and
potentially even false, indicating that in some cases the craving for
experiences has replaced naturalness and authenticity. For example,
95% of the chemicals used in fragrances are synthetic compounds
derived from petroleum—once on the consumers skin—may even jeop-
ardize human well-being (http://ecotoad.org).
A metaphor of the creativity attachment occurs for today's luxury as
expressed by Bernard Arnault (CEO for LVMH Louis Vuitton Moët
Hennessy), who in his usual philistine straightforward style says, “What
interests me in luxury is not creativity but the idea of transforming
creativity into profitability” (Thomas, 2007, p. 13). Hence, luxury might
still be excellent, creative, and exclusive, but what was earlier related to
art, is now related to business. This implies that the influence of creativity
Please cite this article as: Cristini, H., et al., Toward a general theory of luxury: Advancing from workbench definitions and theoretical
transformations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.001
3
has changed not creativity itself; the artistic view of luxury has changed
from creativity to profitability. Interestingly, Atwal and Williams (2009)
adds to the creativity's changed view that in the today's era of self-
interest, luxury serves the individual needs and can be referred to as indi-
vidual luxury, whereby creativity above all refers to personal creativity,
which is expressed and presented by having, owning and using luxury
brands. This supports the view that luxury has transformed from being
something accessed in the public place to being private, yet flavoured
with conspicuousness.
2.4. Timespan – from a long-term to a short-term approach
The fourth opposition relates to having a long-term approach of
luxury as a means of building monuments and luxury representing
heirlooms and permanent wealth (Khalla, 2006; Michaud, 2013) or
a short-term approach, where luxury is represented by trendy fashion
brands or lived experiences for expressing or presenting one-self like
experiencing Valencia Fallas or a touring along the river Danube
(Kastanakis & Balabanis, 2012).
The European Middle Age's culture revolved around the Latin
formula viator mundi. The individual was a transitory pilgrim travelling
between the earthly life and the afterlife (Cristini, 2007). Luxury was
represented by religious monuments—monasteries and
cathedrals—which were built to epitomize the love of God and the reli-
gious emphasis of the time (Cristini, 2007). Up until the Renaissance,
luxury was mostly oriented toward the religious. The switch from the
spiritual ethos of the Middle Ages to a more temporal one, as exempli-
fied by the earthly powers of the kings and the lords, allowed the build-
ing of luxurious castles in the Renaissance (Delannoy, 2009). The
culture's outlook then became “faber mundi” or the man creator,
where human being was the one who created (Eliade, 1957). The
faber mundi served a different desire; the one that dominates (Libido
Dominandi). This change of ethos continued with the Enlightenment
(1688–1800). The philosophers of the time, such as Voltaire (1694–
1778), envisioned luxury as progress for all and welcomed luxury, espe-
cially in its immoral dimension, as freeing men from the yokes of reli-
gion (Galliani, 1989).
The motivating desire of human changed in nature, and became a
desire to know it all; in the Middle Ages the Christian church muffled
the desire to know (Eco, 1982). The Renaissance onward, the individual
became omniscient, reversing the Middle Age ethos of an omnipotent
and omniscient God. Along with liberal theories like those of Kant
(1724–1804) advocating free trade, the end of sumptuary laws and
protectionism—luxury turned gradually to something increasingly
useful creating more trade and employing more people for the sake of
producing these luxury items (e.g. McCoy, 1980).
Today, in the current era of experiences, luxury is being embraced on
the Internet feeding the luxury appetite with innovative technologies
(Atwal & Williams, 2009; Dunderberg, 2013). Hence, while sensing
first luxury impression online is possible, the abundance of information
conveys that everything is knowable and accessible, which in turn, may
feed the impatience. Unique and custom-made luxury is hardly a re-
sponse to that instant desire, which instead is met by mass produced
and branded luxury offerings. Yet, sustainable steps are being taken
within that luxury industry, which was acknowledged as a sector in
its own right 2013 having long-term as a key driver.
2.5. Well-being—from feeding the spirit to pandering the self
The fifth opposition relates to luxury being directed toward feeding
the spirit and the common good to indulging the self, serving self-
seeking means. Earlier, when luxury was limited mostly to the public
place, the aim was to control the tendency of human desire and not to
go beyond what was needed. As the human being is not moved by the
needs, but the desires (Bachelard, 1992), the sumptuary laws limited
the desires and guarded the society, as the fear was that otherwise the
4 H. Cristini et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
society would go wrong. Potentially, not acknowledged at the time, de-
sires are not alike, as not all have a discriminating effect as some desires
are in fact connecting (Delannoy, 2009).
Plato (n.d., 431 BCE–411 BCE) used the metaphor of appetite or
fever to express a desire pushed-to-excess that jeopardizes the
society's harmony. Appetite or “tropheros” has been the key to un-
derstanding the role of the guardians, who adjusted the metaphori-
cal strings of music instruments by relaxing or by pulling the
strings' tension to create the proper harmony within the polis
(Plato, n.d., 431 BCE–411 BCE). The guardians' role was, in fact, to
moderate the feverishness of the luxurious city. The analogy of fever-
ishness works in tandem with the need to order the body of the state,
as Colonna D ’Istria (1991) stated, luxury invades the human con-
science with the loads of its needs and desires. Socrates commented
to that effect as follows: Contentment is natural wealth, while luxury
is artificial poverty (Plato, n.d., 431 BCE–411 BCE).
Up until the Renaissance, luxury was represented by religious
monuments and oriented toward religious, where desire was limited
and assumed to be satisfied by feeding the spirit (Delannoy, 2009).
From the Enlightenment period onward, the approach of reasoning
luxury was not similar anymore to that ancient Greeks or Christians
but instead closer to the Roman approach of indulging, which meant
that luxury could be used in an unchallenged way in the private
sphere (Girard & Oughourlian, 1978; Girard, 2010). In other words,
people would treat themselves with luxury or with luxurious items
for their house or for themselves in a frank and straightforward
way. The ancient Greeks' ethos and that of the Christian era encour-
aged abiding to a hierarchy in values, an all-encompassing reason
(not just a mathematical-empirical reason) and the capacity to ad-
mire. As the sumptuary laws practically disappeared, so did luxury
fade away slowly as a means of feeding the spirit.
The contemporary desire for luxury reflects the current state in the
human conscience's needs and desires; in an extreme situation the indi-
vidual may even willingly sacrifice basic need for feeding the own desire
of having a rather short-term and potentially mediocre experience of
something expressed as luxury and perceived as luxurious like a day
at Paris Disneyland or a day at a spa (Belk, 1999; Lascu, Manrai, &
Manrai, 1994). Also, as status, wealth and power have been intrinsic
iconic luxury meanings, yet now being so desired self-attachments
(Berthon, Pitt, Parent, & Berthon, 2009), one could even claim that
luxury brand has become an end in itself. As Berry (1994, p. 173) argues,
“Money is society's language and luxury has become its grammar”.
Indeed, historically, luxury used to be the affair of the rich and powerful,
so if the current society has become a mass society of consumption,
enabling desire of luxury in terms of luxurious brands, luxury has
changed to something that might be excellent and creative, but isn't
exclusive anymore (Kapferer, 2010). The transformation of luxury to
something feeding the self-serving appetite serves to trivialize the
concept, while also dropping some of its inherent meanings.
This transformation also appears as inducing a desire to imitate
stars, celebrities. Consumers are seduced by this celebrity endorse-
ment that makes them want to have “that bag, those glasses or
those clothes, just like Julia Roberts or Sean Penn” (Berger & Ward,
2010, p. 555). One might even imply that consumption has become
the religion and the consumer spirit is fed by celebrities, as they
have become the priests. While Eliade (1957) has argued that some-
thing that at first glance is not religious, may still establish a sacred
character, one might also suggest that the brand has become the
source of contemporary worship.
Yet, a different economic crisis may well change all that. Isn't it
possible that luxury brands could play the guardian role in our
mass-consuming society by cooling off the fever for materialism,
instead of pandering the self and feeding the appetite? The fact is that
from long-term, to short-term, the current meta-trends of sustainability
and durability are supporting the long-term approach (Hennigs
et al., 2013; Hepburn, Beinhocker, Farmer, & Doyne, 2014), which
Please cite this article as: Cristini, H., et al., Toward a general theory of luxury: Advancing from workbench definitions and theoretical
transformations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.001
may not be a trend at all, but a state and spirit of mind, part of the
mental models.
3. Demoralization and democratization of luxury
When Bernard Mandeville wrote The Fable of the Bees in 1714, he
was actually writing about the social utility of selfishness: private
vices were seen as positive public benefits, just like the bees working
for the welfare of the hive (McCoy, 1980). In this satire, Mandeville
wrote that all social laws resulted from the selfish will of the weak to
uphold and mutually support one another. Hence, a libertine may
have acted out of vice in pursuing own desires, but this prodigality
provided work to the tailors, the waiters, the perfumers, the cooks and
the prostitutes, who in turn hired bakers and carpenters. That is why
the rapaciousness and the violence of the libertine profited to society
in general. Such work emerged in the midst of the Enlightenment,
which emphasized reason and individualism, and opposed all kinds of
traditional authority such as the king and the church (McCoy, 1980;
McCollim, 2012). Indeed, these issues may have been the initial steps
of luxury's demoralization and even democratization, as breaking free
from moral buffers enabled luxury to be reached and accessed by a
greater amount of people.
The decisive break from a moral approach that viewed luxury as an
excess and a threat to an orderly society that jeopardized moral virtue to
a new focus and understanding of it as ‘well-being’ in terms of economic
prosperity, occurred in a contingent setting. It is in the context of trade,
in the midst of the mercantilist era (1500–1776), that the significant
shift in the meaning of luxury occurred. Colbert, the finance minister
(1661–1683) of Louis XIV, used to say there is no cause more certain
for the bankruptcy of the state than the excess of a disordered luxury
(Galliani, 1989, p. 110). Indeed, Colbert was well aware of the thriftless,
extravagant spending in the luxurious parties that the Sun King orga-
nized in Paris. That excessive and disordered luxury was frowned
upon by Colbert, and Louis XIV had to restrain his lifestyle so that
France's finances could be replenished (McCollim, 2012).
From the political economy point of view, liberalism replaced mer-
cantilism, which allowed luxury to grow exponentially and horizontally,
especially in the 20th century (Kapferer, 2012). With the liberal world's
dominance after the economic and political demise of the Soviet Union
(Fukuyama, 1989), most developed countries experienced economic
prosperity in the sense that thanks to birth of the middle classes, it
radically changed consumption habits (Flatters & Wilmott, 2009).
Gradually, from the 1990 onwards some of the most populated nations,
like China and India have experienced economic growth, followed by an
increasing desire for luxury (Liu et al., 2016). Hence, globalization did
not just bring its liberal economy, but also its consumption habits and
modern culture.
The pristine identity of luxury being excellent, creative and exclusive
has changed to luxury now being reachable and accessible (Yeoman,
2011) or at least evoking that illusion. This so-called new luxury
(Kapferer & Laurent, 2016) is just like its peers—being led by an
ultra-utilitarian model—whose sustainability, ethical responsibility
and long-term approach can be challenged. The intriguing issue is,
will the new luxury be able to sustain itself? (Nueno & Quelch, 1998).
Indeed, the current financial, economic, environmental and cultural
(geopolitical) crisis may be what is needed to change the business
models (Flatters & Wilmott, 2009)—if that would be desired. These
interdependent crises, sharing a lack of ethics as a common denominator,
might have an influence on—not only on consumer behavior (Flatters &
Wilmott, 2009)—but also the mental models of the decision-makers.
Post-recession trends on consumer decisions are already underway:
consumers have been changing their habits in displaying ethical,
green consumerism with a focus on boardroom and discretionary thrift,
demanding quality–excellence–and a more virtuous economic system
(Flatters & Wilmott, 2009). Such trends lead us to luxury as a ‘business
model’ (Kapferer, 2012) targeting not only excellence but also
 H. Cristini et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
creativity, long-term approach and spiritual well-being. If not, the new
luxury epitomized in the double faced Janus may well concur with the
industries by following a market-fundamentalist approach, being ag-
gressive to people, nature and to the planet overall (Nueno & Quelch,
1998; Carfagna, Dubois, & Fitzmaurice, 2014).
4. Advancing luxury theory
The study pursues a double aim of which the first was to provide in-
sights into the nature of luxury transformation. Related to that luxury
continues the process of transforming from being an essence related
to being, sharing, and sensing into the very current desire of having,
owning, and using. This desire reflects above all to luxury brands that
are hardly demonstrations of craftsmanship, but are rather manifestations
of successful media-driven persuasion. Hence, thanks to the liberal, dem-
ocratic system, luxury became accessible to more and more people as the
birth of a consumer society along with the development of the industrial
revolution, shaped and transformed tastes and preferences (McKendrick,
1984). Today, luxury appears increasingly as technically reproductions,
flooding the market with mass manufactured products to address the
hedonistic modern man. As it appears, the mainstream luxury dynamic
has shifted from being perceived as negative for the individual and jeop-
ardizing social virtue to a mere device at the service of a consumer society
(Berry, 1994). Yet, the luxurious brands appear not to be that satisfactory
after all—leaving desires unfilled—as the consumers are constantly
craving more (Michaud, 2003). Hence, not only is the current incarnation
of luxury not making consumers happier as such luxury mainly feeds on
the addictive consumption trends (Ebguy, n.d.), and thereby, a concern
is that luxury may—despite the seemingly sustainable steps changing
the mental models—not be sustainable economically or environmentally
after all (Nueno & Quelch, 1998; Carfagna et al., 2014; Hepburn et al.,
2014).
The study also provides insights to what luxury means. The transfor-
mation of luxury was paralleled with the image of the double faced
Janus, the study displays some of the paired opposites that have marked
the phenomenon of luxury over the years. As a result, Fig. 1 presents
possible configurations of its meanings today and exemplars of luxury
and non-luxury objects and experiences. Going beyond the desire of
Fig. 1. The luxury transformation paradigm.
Please cite this article as: Cristini, H., et al., Toward a general theory of luxury: Advancing from workbench definitions and theoretical
transformations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.001
5
beauty (Belk, 1999), the contemporary need and desire of excellent
quality, sustainable creativity, ultimate excellence, and meaningfulness
manifests the search of luxury. For example, Fig. 1 shows that luxury is
expressible by excellent creations like the Trevi Fountain displayed for
the sake of social well-being and implies that luxury meaning may be
attached to Tiffany ear rings or short-term pandering through Italian
gelato.
As the concept of luxury causes confusion, the study also pinpoints
one possible solution to identify luxury as the paradigm in Fig. 1
expresses. Fig. 2 shows that all creations that, as a configuration, are
high on all three conditions—excellence, creativity and exclusivity—are
high on luxury. However, even if there is an association between exclu-
sivity and excellence, excellence can come without exclusivity. Thereby,
following the idea by Isaksson and Woodside (2016), the claim is that
high exclusivity is insufficient, but necessary for ultra-high excellence.
By saying this, the study implies that luxury rests on asymmetry,
which means that although all the three conditions are sufficient to
define luxury, they are not necessary. As the traditional meaning of
luxury associating with excellence, creativity and exclusivity (Okonkwo,
2007, 2009; Jackson & Shaw, 2009) is less and less prevalent in today's
luxury approach driven by brands, luxury can come without one of
these conditions being high, still being perceived as luxury. Yet, ultimate
luxury requires that the all conditions are high. Respectively, a brand,
product, or service lacking one or even all of these conditions hardy rep-
resent luxury in its own right. While stressing various levels of luxury,
the weight of the lines in the figure attempts to indicate how difficult it
is to go to the next level of luxury definition.
5. Conclusion
To conclude, the study clarifies and deepens the meaning of luxury,
and recognizes that it owns a complex meaning; it is has more than one
meaning depending in the context. While luxury continues to trans-
form, tangible and intangible luxuries still appear as to be controversial
phenomena that by their inherent meanings and conditions rest on a
paradox. Still, Morin (2008) supports its existence by saying that
consumers who were previously unable to attain luxury, thanks to
brands, have started to own some luxury items. Related to that Morin
6 H. Cristini et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Fig. 2. Asymmetric (thought experiment) modeling of luxury brands.
says further that mass culture has also produced some masterpieces
imbued with humanism. Also, it may well be that consumers will
demand a more responsible and edifying concept of luxury. After all,
like Antoine de Saint-Exupéry reckoned, “There is only one true luxury,
that of human relationships”.
References
Atwal, G., & Williams, A. (2009). Luxury brand marketing: The experience is everything!
Journal of Brand Management, 18(5/6), 338–346.
Bachelard, G. (1992). La psychanalyse du feu [Psychoanalysis of fire] (2nd ed.). Paris,
France: Gallimard.
Belk, R. W. (1995). Collecting in a consumer society. London: Routledge.
Belk, R. W. (1999). Leaping luxuries and transitional consumers. In R. Batra (Ed.), Marketing
in transitional economies (pp. 39–54). Mass: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Berger, J., & Ward, M. (2010). Subtle signs of inconspicuous consumption. Journal of
Consumer Research, 37(4), 555–569.
Berry, C. (1994). The idea of luxury: A conceptual and historical investigation. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Berthon, P. R., Pitt, L., Parent, M., & Berthon, J. -P. (2009). Aesthetics and ephemerality:
Observing and preserving the luxury brand. California Management Review, 52(1),
45–66.
Calefato, P. (2014). Luxury, fashion, lifestyle, and excess. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Carfagna, L., Dubois, E., & Fitzmaurice, C. (2014). An emerging eco-habitus: The reconfig-
uration of high cultural capital practices among ethical consumers. Journal of
Consumer Culture, 14(2), 158–173.
Castarède, J. (2004). Le luxe. Que sais-je. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France.
Chandon, J. -L., Laurent, G., & Valette-Florence, P. (2016). Pursuing the concept of luxury:
Introduction to the JBR special issue on luxury marketing from tradition to innovation.
Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 299–303.
Colonna, D.'’’. I.,. R. (1991). Hermine. Paris, France: Robert.
Cristini, H. (2007). A different model for solving political conflicts: A comparative study of
religions. Peace and Change, 32(4), 574–589.
Delannoy, A. (2009). Comprendre la Représentation du Luxe dans une Logique de
Fidélisation à la Marque-Exemple de la Perception des Jeunes de 18 à 25 ans. Under-
stand the representation of luxury within a logic of the example of the brand from the
perception of the 18–25 years old. Paris, France: CNAM Doctorate thesis.
Donzé, P. -Y., & Fujioka, R. (2015). European luxury big business and Asian emerging
markets, 1960–2010. Business History, 57(6), 822–840.
Dunderberg, I. (2013). Moral progress in early Christian stories of the soul. New Testament
Studies, 59, 247–267.
Ebguy, R. (d). Robert-Ebguy-sociologue-nous-recherchons-une-societé-de-consolation
[R.E.-sociologist-we are looking for a society of consolation]. Available at www.
psychologies.com/Planete/Societe/Interviews/ accessed 18 November 2014
Eco, U. (1982). Le nom de la rose [The name of the rose]. Paris, France: Grasset.
Eliade, M. (1957). Mythes, rêves et mystères [Dreams, myths and mysteries] (1st ed.). Paris,
France: Folio.
Flatters, P., & Wilmott, M. (2009). Understanding the post-recession consumer. Harvard
Business Review, 87(7), 106–112.
Fukuyama, F. (1989). The end of history. Summer: The National Interest.
Galliani, R. (1989). Rousseau, le luxe et l'idéologie nobiliaire. Etude socio-historique
[Rousseau, luxury and the ideology of nobility]. Studies on Voltaire and the
Eighteenth Century, 268(8), 411–439.
Please cite this article as: Cristini, H., et al., Toward a general theory of luxury: Advancing from workbench definitions and theoretical
transformations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.001
Girard, R. (2010). Battling to the end: Conversations with Benoit Chantre. East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University Press.
Girard, R., & Oughourlian, J. M. (1978). Des choses cachées depuis la fondation du monde.
Paris, France: Biblio Essai.
Han, Y. J., Nunes, J., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of
brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15–30.
Haws, K., & Poynor, C. (2008). Seize the day! Encouraging indulgence of the hyperopic
consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 680–691.
Hennigs, N., Wiedmann, K. P., Klarmann, C., & Behren, S. (2013). Sustainability as part of
the luxury essence. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 52, 25–35.
Hepburn, C., Beinhocker, E., Farmer, J., & Doyne, F. (2014, September–October). Resilient
and inclusive prosperity within planetary boundaries. China &World Economy,
22(5), 76–92.
Herrero, S. M. (1999). The policy of embargoes and the smuggling of luxury products into
Madrid (1635–1673): Court society and dependency of international traders.
Hispania-Revista Espanola de Historia, 201(JAN-APR), 171–191.
Hill, L. (2012). Adam Smith on thumos and irrational economic ‘man’. The European Jour-
nal of the History of Economic Thought, 19(1), 1–22.
http://ecotoad.org/tag/toxic-chemicals (accessed 15 January 2015).
Isaksson, L. E., & Woodside, A. G. (2016). Modeling firm heterogeneity in corporate social
performance and financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 68(2),
3285–3314.
Jackson, T., & Shaw, D. (2009). Mastering fashion marketing. Basingstoke, England: Pal-
grave Macmillan.
Kapferer, J. N. (2010). All that glitters is not green: The challenge of sustainable luxury.
The European Business Review(Nov-Dec), 40–45.
Kapferer, J. N. (2012). Abundant rarity: The key to luxury growth. Business Horizons, 55,
453–462.
Kapferer, J. N., & Laurent, G. (2016). Where do consumers think luxury begins? A study of
perceived minimum price for 21 luxury goods in 7 countries. Journal of Business
Research, 69(1), 332–340.
Kastanakis, M. N., & Balabanis, G. (2012). Between the mass and the class: Antecedents of
the “bandwagon” luxury consumption behaviour. Journal of Business Research,
65(10), 1399–1407.
Kauppinen-Räisänen, H., & Grönroos, C. (2015). Are service marketing models really used
in modern practice? Journal of Service Management, 26(3), 346–371.
Kauppinen-Räisänen, H., Gummerus, J., v Koskull, C., Finne, Å., Helkkula, A., Kowalkowski,
C., & Rindell, A. (2014). Am I worth it? Gifting myself with luxury. Journal of Fashion
Management and Marketing, 18(2), 112–132.
Khalla, M. (2006). Relation au sacré et fidélité à la marque. Relation to the sacred and loyalty
to the brandFrance: University of Caen, Basse Normandie Doctorate thesis.
Kim, S., Park, G., Lee, Y., & Choi, S. (2016). Customer emotions and their triggers in luxury
retail: Understanding the effects of customer emotions before and after entering a luxury
shop. Early view: Journal of Business Research.
Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002). Earning the right to indulge: Effort as a determinant of
customer preferences toward frequency program rewards. Journal of Brand
Management, 39(2), 155–170.
Lascu, D., Manrai, L. A., & Manrai, A. K. (1994). Status-concern and consumer decision
making in the marketizing economy of Romania: From the legacies of prescribed
consumption to the fantasies of desired acquisition. Research in Consumer Behavior,
7, 89–122.
Lipovetsky, G. (2003). De l'Age du sacré au temps des marques [From the age of the sacred to
the age of the brands]. Paris, France: Gallimard.
Liu, S., Perry, P., Moore, C., & Warnaby, G. (2016). The standardization-localization dilem-
ma of brand communications for luxury fashion retailers' internationalization into
China. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 357–364.
 H. Cristini et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 7

Llamas, R., & Thomsen, T. U. (2016). The luxury of igniting change by giving: Transforming
yourself while transforming others' lives. Journal of Business Research, 69(1),
166–176.
MacCants, A. (2007). Exotic goods, popular consumption, and the standard of living:
Thinking about globalization in the early modern world. Journal of World History,
18(4), 433–462.
McCollim, G. (2012). Louis XIV's assault on privilege. Nicholas Desmaretz and the tax on
wealth. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
McCoy, D. (1980). The elusive republic: Political economy in Jeffersonian America. Chapel
Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
McKeen, C. (2004). Swillsburg city limits: The 'city of pigs': Republic 370c–372d. Polis,
21(1–2), 70–92.
McKendrick, N. (1984). The birth of a consumer society: Commercialization of eighteenth
century England. Harper Collins Publishers Ltd.
Meer, R. (2008). Mémoire récit de voyage dans l'art textile de l'Inde, texte et photogra-
phies de Rosenda Meer [Memory story about a trip in the art of textile in India].
Paris, France: Editions Le Cachemirien.
Michaud, Y. (2003). Essai sur le triomphe de l'esthétique [Essay on the triumph of the aesthetic].
Paris, France: Stock.
Michaud, Y. (2013). Le Nouveau luxe, expériences, arrogance, authenticité [The new luxury,
experiences, arrogance, authenticity]. Paris, France: Stock.
Moeller, S., & Wittkowski, K. (2010). The burdens of ownership: Reasons for preferring
renting. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 20(2), 176–191.
Morin, E. (2008). Mon chemin [My way]. Paris, France: Fayard.
Mortelmans, D. (2014). Measuring the luxurious in advertisements: On the popularization
of the luxury perfume market. Semiotica, 199, 193–217.
Nueno, J. L., & Quelch, J. (1998). The mass marketing of luxury. Business Horizons, 41(6),
61–68.
Okonkwo, U. (2007). Luxury fashion branding: Trends, tactics, techniques. London, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Okonkwo, U. (2009). Sustaining the luxury brand on the internet. Journal of Brand
Management, 16(3), 302–310.
Patsiaouras, G., & Fitchett, J. A. (2012). The evolution of conspicuous consumption. Journal
of Historical Research in Marketing, 4(1), 154–176.
Plato. The Republic (327a – 336a), Vol. 3. (trans. 2009). G. Farlik (Trans). Denver, CO: Pa-
rietal Publishing.
Shukla, P., Banerjee, M., & Singh, J. (2016). Customer commitment to luxury brands:
Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 323–331.
Silverstein, M. J., & Fiske, N. (2005). Trading up. New York, NY: Penguin Group Portfolio.
Sirgy, J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer
Research, 9(3), 287–300.
Sombart, W. (1967). Luxury and capitalism. Ann Harbor: University of Michigan Press.
Thomas, D. (2007). De luxe: How luxury lost its luster. New York, NJ: Penguin Press.
Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class: An economic study of institutions. New
York, NY: Random House.
Wilkins, J. (2008). Athenaeus, the navigator. Journal of Hellenic Studies, 128, 132–152.
Yeoman, I. (2011). The changing behaviors of luxury consumption. Journal of Revenue and
Pricing Management, 10, 47–50.
Young, J. H., Nunes, J., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: The role of
brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(7), 15–30.
Zhan, L., & He, Y. (2012). Understanding luxury consumption in China: Consumer percep-
tions of best-known brands. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1451–1460.

Please cite this article as: Cristini, H., et al., Toward a general theory of luxury: Advancing from workbench definitions and theoretical
transformations, Journal of Business Research (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.07.001