3 things Burberry could have done instead of burning $37 million worth of unsold goods.

Photo by Kevin Lee/Getty Images.

In 2017, the British luxury brand Burberry burned over $37 million worth of unsold clothes, perfumes, bags, and other goods.

And over the past five years, they've reportedly incinerated over $117 million worth.

The luxury brand intentionally destroys their surplus products as an attempt to help protect their brand and stock. According to the BBC, Burberry has been making serious efforts to make their goods appear as exclusive commodities after an uptick of counterfeit items have hit the gray market.


"The reason they are doing this is so that the market is not flooded with discounts," Maria Malone, a fashion business professor at Manchester Metropolitan University, told the BBC. "They don't want Burberry products to get into the hands of anyone who can sell them at a discount and devalue the brand."

But the exposure of this practice has people furious.

Clearly, the brand's priorities can and should be called into question, and people spoke out on social media.

Burberry definitely could've addressed this issue in ways that didn't involve completely destroying their products.

1. They could've slowed production.

While Burberry insisted that "the energy generated from burning its products was captured" — meaning it was done in a supposedly green way — at least a few environmental activists have criticized Burberry for wasting the natural resources used to make their products in the first place.

Lu Yen Roloff, an activist from Greenpeace, said that one way they could've prevented this is by slowing production of items rather than overproducing and destroying the excess.

"Despite their high prices, Burberry shows no respect for their own products and the hard work and natural resources that are used to made them," Roloff told the BBC. "The growing amount of overstock points to overproduction, and instead of slowing down their production, they incinerate perfectly good clothes and products."

2. They could've de-branded and donated the goods to charity.

Others on Twitter suggested that by altering the appearance of their items, Burberry would be able to protect itself from cheapening the brand or enabling counterfeiters.

3. They could've garnered positive publicity by donating to charity.

While this may come off as unsavory, it's still a more conscious alternative to burning. Burberry could've simply donated their items to homeless shelters and other charitable organizations. The PR from such an act would have certainly attracted public attention — and more profit.

Burberry isn't the only brand that uses this practice, but let's hope they see the backlash and consider changing their ways.

Both Chanel and Louis Vuitton have intentionally destroyed their unwanted items to help make their brands remain "exclusive." But in a time where more people are grappling with poverty, food insecurity, and homelessness, these fashion brands should be aware of what kind of message they're sending.

Let's hope they recognize that their impact on the world matters.

More
via Twitter / Soraya

There is a strange right-wing logic that suggests when minorities fight for equal rights it's somehow a threat to the rights already held by those in the majority or who hold power.

Like when the Black Lives Matter movement started, many on the right claimed that fighting for black people to be treated equally somehow meant that other people's lives were not as valuable, leading to the short-lived All Lives Matter movement.

This same "oppressed majority" logic is behind the new Straight Pride movement which made headlines in August after its march through the streets of Boston.

Keep Reading Show less
popular

For most of us, the hypothetical question of whether we would stick with a boyfriend or girlfriend through the trials of cancer and the treatments is just that – a hypothetical question. We would like to think we would do the right thing, but when Max Allegretti got the chance to put his money where mouth is, he didn't hesitate for a second.

Keep Reading Show less
popular
via bfmamatalk / facebook

Where did we go wrong as a society to make women feel uncomfortable about breastfeeding in public?

No one should feel they have the right to tell a woman when, where, and how she can breastfeed. The stigma should be placed on those who have the nerve to tell a woman feeding her child to "Cover up" or to ask "Where's your modesty?"

Breasts were made to feed babies. Yes, they also have a sexual function but anyone who has the maturity of a sixth grader knows the difference between a sexual act and feeding a child.

Keep Reading Show less
popular
Instagram / JLo

The Me Too movement has shed light on just how many actresses have been placed in positions that make them feel uncomfortable. Abuse of power has been all too commonplace. Some actresses have been coerced into doing something that made them uncomfortable because they felt they couldn't say no to the director. And it's not always as flagrant as Louis C.K. masturbating in front of an up-and-coming comedian, or Harvey Weinstein forcing himself on actresses in hotel rooms.

But it's important to remember that you can always firmly put your foot down and say no. While speaking at The Hollywood Reporter's annual Actress Roundtable, Jennifer Lopez opened up about her experiences with a director who behaved inappropriately. Laura Dern, Awkwafina, Scarlett Johansson, Lupita Nyong'o, and Renee Zellweger were also at the roundtable.

Keep Reading Show less
popular