Burberry feels heat of protest
Burberry has ended its bonfire of the luxuries after an outcry about waste, reports Kate Holton ,of Reuters.
BRITAIN’S Burberry will no longer burn unsold luxury goods to protect its brand after an admission it destroyed almost $US40 million
($NZ60.7 million) worth of stock last year sparked a furore over waste in the fashion industry.
Burberry also said last week it would no longer use real fur such as mink and raccoon, in another step to improving its social and environmental credentials which was immediately welcomed by animal rights campaigners.
The waste revelation in July from Burberry came only months after the owner of Cartier and Montblanc admitted destroying some of the company’s unsold watches and coincides with growing public awareness of waste and its environmental impact.
‘‘Modern luxury means being socially and environmentally responsible,’’ said chief executive Marco Gobbetti, who is in the process of taking Burberry, where coats sell for more than £2500 ($NZ4913) and handbags are priced at up to £1500, more upmarket.
Many retailers have been called out in recent years for destroying unsold stock, including by slashing or punching holes in garments before throwing them out.
Richemont, owner of luxury watch brands, said it bought back unsold stock from dealers during a recent downturn and recycled the precious metals and stones in the highend pieces.
Burberry physically destroyed £28.6 million worth of finished goods in the financial year to April, up from £26.9 million the previous year, including
£10 million worth of beauty products such as perfume.
The products are generally those that did not sell via discount outlets and are more than five years old.
Burberry said it would try to reuse, repair, donate or recycle its products while a strategy to make fewer, more targeted collections should help reduce excess stock.
It is also working with the sustainable luxury company
Elvis and Kresse to transform 120 tonnes of leather offcuts into new products over the next five years.
Exane BNP Paribas analyst Luca Solca said Burberry’s announcement could put pressure on other luxury names to be more transparent about how they handled unsold goods.
‘‘Concerns about sustainability are slowly but surely becoming more relevant for luxury goods consumers,’’ he said.
Some luxury groups also offer sales to employees and journalists to limit the amount of unsold stock. Both Kering, owner of Gucci and Alexander McQueen, and LVMH, owner of Louis Vuitton, Celine, Christian Dior and Givenchy, declined to comment.
In the mass market, major brands have also struggled to shift stock in a fastchanging environment.
H&M, the world’s secondbiggest fashion retailer after Inditex, has said in the past it burns stock, but only when it is damaged or, for example, has high levels of chemicals in it. At the end of May the Swedish group had $US4 billion of unsold stock it said it hoped to sell.
‘‘Under no circumstances do we destroy clothes that are safe to use,’’ a spokeswoman said.
Burberry is following the likes of Versace, Gucci and the trailblazer for ethical fashion, Stella McCartney, in removing real fur from its ranges.
The moves are part of a series of changes at Burberry where Gobbetti is pinning his hopes on new designer Riccardo Tisci to transform the quintessentially British fashion house. Former Givenchy star Tisci releases his debut collection this month.
Peta, the campaign group for the ethical treatment of animals, welcomed Burberry’s move to stop using fur, which it said was a sign of the times.
‘‘The few fashion houses refusing to modernise and listen to the overwhelming public opinion against fur are now sticking out like a sore thumb for all the wrong reasons,’’ Peta director of international programmes Mimi Bekhechi said.
Campaign group Humane Society International said animal charities would unite during this year’s major fashion shows to call on Italian brand Prada to follow Burberry’s lead.
The head of the International Fur Federation, Mark Oaten, said substituting natural fur with ‘‘plastic petroleumbased materials, like fake fur’’ was neither luxury nor responsible.
Concerns about sustainability are slowly
but surely becoming more relevant for luxury
goods consumers