Non-compete agreement: a discreet but powerful barrier to talent mobility

Non-compete agreements are obviously nothing new in the luxury packaging sector. Here, as elsewhere, companies have long used them to protect their customers, innovations, and business relationships. However, it appears that their impact on talent mobility has become more significant today. It is clear that in a market where caution tends to prevail and where everyone thinks twice before making a move, these agreements act as an additional barrier. They are sometimes useful, but also sometimes excessive and always sensitive. Below are the observations of Ioulia Mikailoff, Identités Remarquables, on its role, its limitations, and the developments emerging internationally at a time when cosmetic and luxury packaging needs circulation, renewal, and agility.

The non-compete clause was originally designed to serve a clear purpose: to protect the legitimate interests of the company. In the packaging sector, as in others, this means preserving valuable information (customer portfolio, commercial terms, innovative projects, industrial architecture) to which certain employees have access.
To be valid, this clause must comply with strict conditions.
The first is justification: the employer must be able to demonstrate that the position actually exposed the employee to sensitive data.
The second condition is temporal: the clause must be limited in time, and in our industry we frequently see durations of twelve to twenty-four months, which represent a heavy commitment when the market is changing rapidly.
The third is geographical: the scope must be proportionate, but we still see clauses covering the whole of France, Europe, or beyond, considerably reducing the possibilities for retraining.
Finally, this clause must be accompanied by financial compensation, generally between 20% and 50% of the salary. In practice, this range creates two very different situations: at 20%, the compensation is low in relation to the constraint imposed on the employee; at 50%, it becomes high for the company, often disproportionate when no real competitive risk is demonstrated, particularly for non-executive profiles.
These conditions create a delicate balance. In theory, the clause protects the company without indefinitely blocking the employee’s career. In practice, this balance is sometimes disrupted. Some clauses even provide for possible activation during the trial period, creating immediate insecurity for new hires, whose knowledge of customers and the company is still very limited. Others define the activity not to be competed with so broadly that they encompass almost the entire sector, including segments that are not really competitive.
Despite this, it is important to remember that the clause is very rarely activated in practice. Using it involves a cost and a procedure that are not always worthwhile.

Ultimately, the mere presence of the clause is often enough to influence the decisions of companies and potential candidates alike.

In practice, a deterrent rather than a protective mechanism

Throughout the interviews, it became clear how much this clause silently shapes behavior. Many salespeople demonstrate a natural sense of ethics: avoiding approaching their former clients, refusing to go to a direct competitor, preserving relationships and balances. This spontaneous ethic exists well before any legal constraints.
However, the clause continues to cause obstacles. Some companies are reluctant to hire a candidate for fear of possible enforcement, even if the clause is legally fragile. Players in the sector know each other, and the fear of a conflict—however unlikely—is enough to discourage them.
For their part, many candidates give up on exploring opportunities that are nevertheless relevant. In a context already marked by caution, many fear less the clause itself than its consequences: the possibility of a conflict, the risk of tarnishing their reputation in a sector where information travels fast, or even the prospect of having to challenge the clause before a lawyer.
This deterrent effect results in lower mobility, a heightened sense of scarcity, and recruitment processes that take longer.

In the rest of the world, trends that call this practice into question

International developments surrounding non-compete clauses show that France is not alone in its concerns. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission’s decision to ban almost all non-compete clauses has sparked a major debate. Although suspended by the courts, it is based on a strong conviction that these clauses limit the creation of new businesses, restrict wages, and hinder innovation. The economic analyses put forward by the FTC suggest that tens of thousands of additional patents, thousands of new businesses, and more positive wage dynamics would result if mobility were freed up.
In Europe, several countries are also moving towards more proportionate use. The United Kingdom has announced its intention to limit the maximum duration of these clauses to three months, considering that a longer duration unnecessarily stifles careers. The Netherlands is working on a requirement for precise justification, clause by clause, in order to avoid general formulations that no longer correspond to the reality of the professions. Germany, Switzerland, and Austria maintain even more restrictive measures, but with high financial penalties that naturally limit abuse.
This global movement reveals a common trend: encouraging mobility, protecting innovation, and reserving non-compete clauses for truly sensitive situations. It invites each sector to question its own use of these tools and to consider alternatives that are more balanced, more up-to-date, and more respectful of professional dynamics.

How to find a new balance in a market that needs a breath of fresh air

In cosmetic and luxury packaging, non-compete clauses are neither a problem in themselves nor an instrument to be banned. They remain useful when they are precisely defined, proportionate, and based on strategic reality. But when they become too broad, too long, or too intimidating, they clearly generate immobility that ultimately hurts everyone: companies, employees, and the market as a whole.
The sector needs movement, circulation, and new perspectives. It needs a climate where the protection of legitimate interests coexists with professional freedom, and where trust takes precedence over mistrust. Alternatives exist, as do best practices. Perhaps it is time to put them back at the center.
Next month, a specialist lawyer will provide legal and practical insights to help companies strike the right balance between protection, proportionality, and attractiveness.

Ioulia Mikaïloff
Identités Remarquables - ioulia.mikailoff@identites-remarquables.fr