Why do Luxury fashion Brands burn their own unsold Goods?

Even if little, everyone who is capable of affording, is a consumer of fashion products in one or another way. The rich especially are consumers of fashion products made by luxury brands be it Gucci, Ralph Lauren, Louis Vuitton to Cartier, Nike, and many more. The fashion industry cannot run in constant mode due to the wide range of demands of their customers. To satisfy the customers and to maintain the brand name, luxury brands design and manufacture the latest collections almost every week. All that is manufactured is not consumed and so a large portion of these brand-new goods is discarded and are thrown into incinerators. Yes, this is a bitter truth of the glamourous Fashion industry, making it one of the major contributors to environmental pollution by generating greenhouse gas emissions.  

Why do Luxury brands burn their goods anyway? Is there any acceptable reason for it?

The answer is no, there is no acceptable reason for it. It is done to maintain exclusivity by making the goods less available. Demand and supply play a role here, the lesser the availability higher the demand. Also, the industry believes in keeping their luxurious goods away from those who cannot afford them at retail prices. You must have never seen luxury brand products on sale as it may dilute the heritage of these brands. The illogical reason that these brands use as a defense is to protect their business interests-namely IP and preservation of brand equity. 

There are other environmentally friendly methods to get rid of the unsold batch of products. These methods include recycling and then reusing. A brand named “Reformation” makes use of deadstock clothing, practices recycling and reusing of the products that it makes in its own designs. But recycling is costly as manual labor will be needed to separate the garments and accessories. It will make the products available for reuse at a cheaper rate that will discourage full-price sales.  

Another following reason why these brands are involved in the process of incineration of their own goods is to gain tax credits. They are compelled to destroy their products entirely and record the process as proof of the destruction.

Is this practice of burning away goods in mass a legal practice in the age of Climate Crisis?

The burning away products by brands is an old practice followed in the Fashion Industry. Initially, there were no such regulations but the insane strain it is putting on the environment has thankfully made people realize its effects. Many brands have now been facing consumer backlash and pressure from increasing government regulations. A UK parliamentary committee report on sustainability and the fashion industry considered the various environmental impacts of incineration. According to a United Nations report, the world’s temperature is likely to rise by 2.7 degrees by 2040. Following this, environmental activists, leaders, the consumers have begun to reckon with the way the fashion industry is brutally affecting climate change. Every product when burnt releases greenhouse gases. Now imagine the wrath that our environment has been facing. 

In 2018, it was reported that H&M could not sell for around $4.3 billion worth of products, in the same year Burberry also suffered a backlash from people who started making vows to boycott Burberry as it destroyed $36.8 million worth of its own merchandise. The voice was raised by the members of the Parliament who demanded the British Government to make regulations that shall exempt brands from such harmful activities. Such outrage made Burberry release a statement saying that it shall no longer destroy its unsold products anymore. In fact, Amazon also had to face the backlash in Germany for the tons of returned items destroyed by it that including mattresses, washing machines, cellphones, etc. 

Incineration of mass unsold products is now being frowned upon in this age of Climate crisis where we can not afford to put a strain on the environment anymore. There is no pre-existing legal framework that condemns it. But this has to stop, it’s high time. Customers, activists, even the UN have come to the forefront that is putting pressure on the Fashion industry to stop being a contributor to unhealthy climate change.

For instance, in recent years Europe has made developments at the legal and advisory levels that now focus on brand practices and improving sustainable development by preventing activities like mass incineration. In France, a wide-ranging anti-waste law was passed in January 2021 that on its implementation will ban the disposal of any unsold non-food products. French Government is now strict and adamant on this ban as it is a waste that defies reason. In the UK, the Environmental Audit Committee (the “EAC”) called upon the government to pressurize brands to take greater responsibility for the waste they create on the basis.

Conclusion

A sustainable environment has become a dream now as we see the climate change crisis and the reasons behind it. It is the duty of each one of us to make it possible anyhow. From the analysis above, it is clear that the fashion industry is accelerating climate change and it should not be taken for granted, and strict regulations, laws should be made to prevent it. Brands should be cautious when producing, they should produce less, while consumers should encourage repetition, avoid discarding clothes, shoes, etc. just after one-time usage. This way consumers shall be consuming less. Unlike brands like H&M, which produce in bulk and end up discarding inventory worth billions, all brands should manufacture limited collections. The sale of unsold goods can be lifted by slashing discounts. This shall strengthen the bond between manufacturer and consumer, will not leave behind the bulk of unsold products, and will not negatively affect the market. Also, the focus can be slightly shifted towards biodegradable fabrics, that might not have to be burned if discarded. It is a cycle of efforts by each one of us that should go on successfully to help the environment.