In the 2006 film The Devil Wears Prada, Miranda Priestly’s dressing was well-aligned with her role as Editor-in-Chief of Runway. Her clothing and styling reflected editorial authority, which was very directional, and ahead of the room, with her sharp tailored outerwear like capes, trenches and coats in neutrals like camel, grey, ivory and occasionally offset with burgundy or emerald. Even in silence, her dressing communicated decision-making power. Clothing and fashion were always a powerful non-verbal message in professional environments.



In corporate culture, this system becomes especially prominent, where what one wears communicates not just identity, but hierarchy and power. The film reiterated and clearly established for the Indian audience that corporate dressing is a strategic communication, and it is about a powerful executive presence for women, as well. Clothing communicates perception, builds trust, and establishes intent. This film gave a new direction to corporate dressing for women, to showcase power dynamics in the workplace, from casual attire to structured tailoring.






In the early 2000s in India, corporate dressing was not a fully developed or accepted concept and definitely not a strong industry segment. It was a negotiation between sarees and suits. Westernwear for women was either tailored or ready-to-wear say from Shoppers Stop, Pantaloons. Brands like AND and Fabindia, gradually introduced the idea that workwear itself could be designed, standardised, and worn confidently by women.



While brands like AND laid the foundation for western workwear in India in the late 90s, it was the post-2010 phase, with labels like Van Heusen Woman, that formalised the idea of “power dressing” for the Indian corporate woman. The Devil Wears Prada (2006) demanded that women dress like authority and communicate hierarchy of power; however, the post-2010 decade gradually shifted to defining authority with individuality.