This is interesting from an economics point of view:
Burberry, the upmarket British fashion label, destroyed unsold clothes, accessories and perfume worth £28.6m last year to protect its brand.
It takes the total value of goods it has destroyed over the past five years to more than £90m.
Fashion firms including Burberry destroy unwanted items to prevent them being stolen or sold cheaply.
Someone has obviously done some calculations and estimated the damage done to the brand’s image by selling their products at a discount is greater than £90m. So, it’s cheaper to burn it.
Burberry is not the only company having to deal with a surplus of luxury stock.
Richemont, which owns the Cartier and Montblanc brands, has had to buy back €480m (£430m) worth of watches over the last two years.
Analysts say some parts of those watches would be recycled – but much would be thrown away.
Better than being flogged second hand on eBay, obviously. Naturally:
Environmental campaigners are angry about the waste.
Those last three words feel superfluous.
“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,” said Lu Yen Roloff of Greenpeace.
You can imagine the mental gymnastics they went through trying to put their knee-jerk objections into vaguely-coherent words, can’t you?
“The growing amount of overstock points to overproduction, and instead of slowing down their production, they incinerate perfectly good clothes and products.
Are they still producing the same line of clothes they’re burning? Unlikely. And since Lu Yen Roloff brought up thrift:
Back to Paris for #fabcitysummit – nice little jazz place around the corner of the flat I am staying in. So excited for tomorrow! #makesmthng #Greenpeace #sustainablecities #localchange… https://t.co/psfCxSvPpA
— Lu Yen Roloff (@lyroloff) July 12, 2018
Maybe we can get Burberry employees and shareholders to comment on her lifestyle?