Have brands stopped burning their products? An update on Burberry’s product destruction controversy.

Burberry's unsustainable practice was slandered back in 2018 - so what is the brand doing now?

Product burning by Burberry was discovered in their 2018 Financial Report, where it said that Burberry had "disposed" of nearly £30m worth of product. This was then followed up by the discovery that they had since disposed of £90m over the last five years.

However, Burberry was not the only brand to burn clothes and unsold products. Nike shoes, H&M clothing and Cartier watches had all been reported to have been destroyed. (ref)

But why were these brands destroying items in the first place? Dr Mark Sumner, lecturer of Fashion and Sustainability at the University of Leeds claims that "there is a rarity in Luxury. Whether it’s luxury cars, luxury fashion, luxury jewellery, the defining aspect of it is the fact that it’s rare.” This would suggest that brands do not want the value of their products to decrease by becoming more easily accessible.

This was described by luxury analyst as "not green practice and not socially responsible as there are people who don't have clothes to put on their backs."

After the controversy and criticism about their actions, Burberry has since stopped burning clothing. In fact, from September of that year, the BBC reported that the brand was to stop using real fur., after previously using fox, mink, rabbit and Asiatic Racoon in it's collections. Clearly, the backlash received by the brand has forced them to become environmentally friendly. (ref)

This was encouraged by Greenpeace after their specific criticism and described the action as a "much needed sign" of a change in the industry.

Burberry's own Global Environmental impact policy claims that they aim to reduce impact by "work closely with our partners to improve chemical management, reduce energy and water consumption and increase the use of renewable energy wherever possible." (ref) It also says that they consider the suppliers environmental performance is evaluated using vendor and supplier scorecards.

According to The Times, this action was taken as part of their "five year responsibility agenda". (ref) Further action by the brand in 2019 was taken when they said they would "reduce their carbon emissions  by 2022. They also announced their hopes to eventually work entirely from renewable energy. (ref)

Is all of this action taken simply because they got caught? Most likely. But that doesn't take away from the positive changes that this company making, despite potentially doing it for the wrong reasons. The backlash by the media clearly worked to keep Fashion Brands accountable, which should be taken as a win for the environments sake.

References:

file:///C:/Users/44752/Downloads/BurberryBacklash.pdf

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45430683

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/06/burberry-to-stop-burning-unsold-items-fur-after-green-criticism#:~:text=Burberry%20is%20to%20end%20its,after%20criticism%20from%20environmental%20campaigners.&text=Burberry%20is%20the%20first%20major,practice%20of%20destroying%20unwanted%20products.

https://therising.co/2019/07/01/burberry-announces-environmental-sustainability-commitments/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/burberry-to-stop-burning-its-unwanted-clothes-ljkc675bf

http://www.mindfulmarketing.org/mindful-matters-blog/burberry-after-its-burning-ban

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/business/burberry-burning-unsold-stock.html