Why Burberry burned its stuff... - YouLookFab Forum

Category

Shopping

Welcome! Read about what to wear and how to wear it on the YLF Blog. Join the YLF Forum to ask specific questions or just chat about fashion and personal style. Or check out the curated list of things we love in YLF Finds.

Outfits Ensembles Trends Advice

Why Burberry burned its stuff...

Mel

Absolutely fascinating interview with a fashion expert on why companies burn their excess merchandise.
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/.....ke-h-and-m

I guess the destruction of excess goods is just part and parcel of a massively productive society, but like the author, it pains me to see such a waste of natural resources and human work...

And then there's the question of "well, what does it have to do with me?" I'd like to hear from y'all on whether or not an article like this would actually move you to modify your own shopping habits, or if you find it interesting but not revelant to the ethical obligations of the modern shopper. Is it unfair of us to demand that companies ban this practice, if we love the constant flow of new merchandise and gorged clearance racks?

Shopping

20 replies

Latest reply was from Jenni NZ

ladypainter

Wow, that was really eye-opening. Thanks for posting this.
It really surprises me that these companies aren’t better at predicting /matching supply to demand on their products.
Luxury retail prices have gotten ridiculously overinflated over the last 25 years. Back in the ‘90s and early ‘00s, I could afford an annual or semiannual “treat”—but those days are long gone. Autocorrect stinks!

bj1111

Veteran

Probably why there is a thriving luxury resale market.

Jenn

(website)

Veteran

I liked this, and it embodies the philosophy I try to shop by:

“What can shoppers do?

Timo Rissanen: On a very simple level, figure out which things bring you the most satisfaction and then buy those things.”

Jenni NZ

Veteran

Well I wish that they wouldn't make so many clothes in the first place! All I can do personally is to not buy so many of any clothes. I was intrigued by the argument about it not really costing anything like what those designer clothes are sold at to make them. Which is partly why I would just refuse to buy them, I believe I could afford some items but I'm just like No! Unfortunately since I never have, then I cannot hurt them by withdrawing my $$ which they never got in the first place. Glad some actual Burberry customers made a fuss.

kkards

Veteran

I’m sorry it’s hard for me to get outraged about this. Yes, Burberry over produced. It’s not the 1st nor will it be the last company to do this. And fashion it not the only industry to do this. Yes we should all be more mindful about what we buy and what we consume...but until we become a made to order society there will always be waste

RobinF

Veteran

Very interesting, I had no idea. I agree with lady painter, shouldn't they be better at predicting how much they need to make? Also, maybe it is naive of me but I can't help but think that an item is actually more exclusive if there were really only limited numbers made to start with.

Stagiaire Fash

Veteran

The way our market is set up, a thing can sell for much more than it cost to make it. It makes sense, within that system, to spend a little bit more of there’s a chance of gaining a lot more. I don’t like that outcome, but it is perfectly rational within the parameters given.

Bijou

Veteran

This just seems so wrong and sad to me. It is like seeing lots of food being disposed of in landfill because producers don't want to destroy market prices. Just because it makes economic sense, it does not make it right. I really applaud those producers who donate their excess produce to the homeless and needy - we have a number of food stores that do that locally and it makes me shop with them.

I would like to see clothing retailers donate excess stock which is then sold via eBay or some other auctioning system, whereby the proceeds raised are given to worthy charities. Most Burberry goods are likely to be snaffled up and cherished by the purchasers who would normally not be able to afford these items at full price. I have an old Burberry trench that I love. However I would feel much happier if I thought the company behind such an iconic piece was ethical and doing good in the world rather than merely maximising profits and creating landfill.

Cardiff girl

Veteran

I hear from the recent news that Burberry had pledged never to do this again but to re purpose it’s excess stock.Cant quite work out why they thought it was a good idea in the first place ,putting profit before the planet.What big companies seem to forget is that we all live on the same planet a planet of finite resources.There is no where else to go once we ve messed it all up .

Faith

This was a great article, I had no idea this happened!

jussie

Veteran

Look, I understand the commercial reasons for doing this- but I still think we need to introduce some legal policy around it, to at least discourage/minimize waste burns. I’m sure there’s steps that could be taken to reduce this practice, although it would be a massive undertaking. Perhaps a carbon fee for every item burned or put into landfill. I think that would strongly encourage luxury brands to re-think their forecasting and waste management practices.
Of course we are all responsible for educating ourselves about the issue, and demanding some transparency from the retailers so we can make more informed decisions about where to spend our money.

Stagiaire Fash

Veteran

Cardiff, putting profits before the planet is what corporations do. They are required to maximize shareholder returns (unless it’s a B-Corp or something). Jussie is right that it takes a societal decision to bring about structural change. As long as the rules and positions players are in remain the same, there is no reason to think it will change. Some companies might take some environmentally beneficial action for the customer loyalty it brings, but the underlying motives remain the same—there is nothing to prevent a company from partying with the activists out cent while keeping the business of trash burning and production out back. We need a lot more than shareholder or mass activism to change this.

Jenni NZ

Veteran

See, Mel, I don't "love the constant flow of new merchandise and gorged clearance racks?"
Not now. I was keen on fashion in the 80s ( my 20s), pretty much out of it in the 90s ( my 30s)- because busy having 3 children from 1991-96 then bringing them up. I only got back into it about 2008 when I needed a whole new wardrobe due to menopause and weight gain at age 47. And I feel the "fast fashion" side of things had kind of passed me by. We didn't get the big chains in NZ til the past few years. We tend to get Australian brands coming into our market as well as our own home-grown ones, and then only US ones a bit ( like Gap- it was only at the airport).I am so horrified by the waste that I am making huge attempts in my own life to not have the churn. Reading "To Die For" helped too. But it's a huge problem, I agree with FashIntern.
So when it was the 80s and I was first a student and then a young professional, no-one had nearly as many clothes. Maybe only celebs and people like Iris Apfel!

Gigi

Veteran

I really thought what Burberry did was wasteful, but I don't like the idea of the government trying to crack down on it. Technically, what Burberry produces belongs to Burberry, and they have the right to dispose of it as they please.

I do think that it would be a much better idea if the exclusive companies just produced a lot less. That in and of itself would create exclusivity.

I am OK with labels finding ways to preserve their exclusivity. I think it's fun to see pics of movie stars wearing things that I know are far beyond me financially. It helps create the movie-star image.

I like jussie's idea of some kind of fee for burning of clothing--not outlawing the practice outright but creating an incentive for better business practices. And I agree that transparency is helpful too: if consumers know what a business' practices are, they can choose where to spend their money.

Anonymous

It really bothers me that companies do this, not only the environmental damage from burning, but all that work wasted. On our side, we should make the best decisions we can, buy for our real lives, and get the best quality we can. But the industry needs to rethink the model, not overproduce, and treat workers fairly.

Anonymous

Many years ago when I was a teen (1970s) I used to buy a lot of named brand clothes at shops that would cut out the labels. The clothing was dirt cheap and very well made, just missing the brand label. I guess stores like this don't exist anymore. I also had friends who worked at Macy's (Bambergers in NJ) and they often told me when clothing did not sell that had to cut it up and put in the trash. I am just thinking of all the people that do not have anything and stuff like this goes on. I don't understand. In the end it is always about money.

ladypainter

Just wondering, which inventories are being burned/landfilled?
Are we talking about scarves, bags, perfumes, logo bling? The items that are aimed at the furthest diffusion edge of the market? Or the high end—the items that are, or ought to be, aimed at a very select demographic of buyers?
If Burberry (as the example) is overestimating how many middle class or blue collar buyers are willing to buy ball caps or scarves, that’s bad enough, but if they’re manufacturing $1000+ trenches and RTW pieces in excess of their market, then there’s a director of production who needs to be looking for a new job!
Seriously, the law of supply and demand applies here:
If exclusivity and high profits are the goal, then tailoring and targeting production to the *specific* audience is the means.
Again, this is about knowing your market, and knowing the basics f timing. Wall St Journal had an article this week regarding Apple’s mistake last year in releasing the iPhone X *after* the iPhone 8 duo.

Mel

Thanks to all for the fascinating questions and insights!

ladypainter- I understand that these are high-items being destroyed. In another article I read how an employee was distressed at seeing her luxury brand destroy fine leather clothing and bags, because it meant the animals "died for nothing".

The fee for burning sounds interesting, but I almost think that consumer reaction would be more efficient. None of these luxury labels want a bad name. They pay millions in advertising to keep their name prestigious and therefore keep customers buying. I was surprised to see how swiftly Burberry reacted to the public reaction. They wouldn't have reacted so swiftly to a government regulation. If we don't like a company's way of operating, we should say so. But then there is the challenge of being coherent with our desires to be less wasteful. Like many of you, I believe that each us of us is responsible for buying what we really want and need and not promoting a culture of waste. I think this YLF blog helps many of us with that. And the clothing companies should get better at predicting the market, although that seems like an enormous challenge given the ever-changing fashion scene. Perhaps in the days when all women wore day dresses (and most of them hand-made), life was much simpler!

Mel

danusia- interestingly, I just saw a documentary called Poverty, Inc, about how donations of our excess stuff to poor countries has the potential to disrupt and ruin the local markets. Imagine that you are a dressmaker in a poor African village. You have good business, until the day a huge donation of clothes comes to town. Then nobody buys your dresses for a whole year and you go out of business. Next year, there are no clothes donations and people want dresses, but you've already lost your business and your employees. There are African countries that have actually banned imports of used clothing from developed countries, because if they continue to rely on our second hand stuff, they are hampered in developing their own natural resources, industries, and human talent.

I guess that throws our overproduction problem back onto ourselves. It really is a problem that the society producing it has to solve. We are the ones who have to figure out what to do with our excess.

Jenni NZ

Veteran

I re-read the article. Very good on the second reading. I am glad that the shareholders objected. It was interesting seeing how many brands were called out in the article.
I can only do my best I suppose. Maybe the tide will turn, slowly. I live in hope!