Do not you get to anyone: How brands destroy "unnecessary" clothes
The fashion industry has many skeletons in the closet. For example, the production of fashionable clothes is the second largest industrial polluter of the environment, about 60 million people are involved in the production of clothing, and the cost of plastic, which goes to the packaging of clothes and packages, reaches almost 120 billion dollars. Should I remind you that plastic almost does not decompose and, according to environmental forecasts, by 2050 there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish. But, perhaps, little has recently caused as much noise as the official statement of Burberry, in which the company admitted that it was getting rid of excess unsold clothes by burning it.
Where does excess clothing come from
Overproduction is one of the main problems of the fashion industry, especially when it comes not to niche and luxury brands, but to retail giants. Few people think that if a thing hangs at a sale - this is her last chance to live in a wardrobe before becoming rubbish and going for recycling. Brands are becoming hostages of commercial competition, which requires an increase in the volume of goods, without taking into account the risks of overproduction. According to various sources, the fashion industry as a whole produces 90 million tons of textile garbage per year. These gigantic numbers add up not only from the volume of market balances, but also from the fact that the things we buy sooner or later become unusable.
The situation with the mass market in this sense is especially sad: new collections appear not every six months, but every two weeks, and the quality of things leaves much to be desired, which makes buying them again and again. The system "bought, vilified, thrown, bought" becomes dangerously obsessed. And if some brands try to introduce a partial recycling system into production, it is easy to guess what happens to the rest - they simply destroy the surplus.
How to get rid of it
Not so long ago, H & M was subjected to attacks, which in recent years has placed marketing emphasis on conscious fashion, environmental friendliness and recycling of old clothes. But in October last year, it became known that the Swedish giant burns 12 tons of unsold clothing every year. The journalists of the Danish television in the program "Operation X" conducted an investigation, which revealed that H & M has burned 60 tons of absolutely new clothes over the past few years - in the plot are evidence of eyewitnesses.
H & M attempted to refute this information, explaining that the company only recycled a batch of clothing that did not meet chemical safety indicators. But the journalists went further: the KARA / NOVEREN recycling company (its services were used at H & M) provided them with two pairs of trousers from the party that was preparing for recycling. Reporters took them to an independent laboratory along with two similar pairs of trousers from a regular H & M store. All four pairs were tested on a wide range of harmful chemicals, and the laboratory concluded that all products are completely safe.
An official commentary from H & M states that an independent examination, which television reporters used, was different from their own. But the incident still led to a big scandal: the practice of burning unwanted clothing is at variance with the company's declarations about the policy of conscious consumption.
However, things burn not only mass retailers. Luxury brands are reproached for merciless recycling. The last vivid example is Burberry: the BBC released information that over the past five years, the brand has burned clothing, accessories and perfumes for 5 million pounds. Information on the disposal of collections of other luxury houses - and the secret sealed, and an open secret. It is difficult to imagine how difficult it is for companies to maintain such a level of conspiracy, but data on the scale of liquidation almost do not go outside.
"H & M turned the scapegoats for doing absolutely everything," the founders of the Fashion Revolution movement stood up for the company. "Despite the fact that their business model does not quite match the actual practices of eco-friendly fashion, H & M really tries to rethink its production."
Why burn
The decay products of clothes that are not made from 100% cotton or flax, rather cause damage to the environment than will benefit her. Every second a textile truck is burned in the world. According to Eco Watch, in the process of burning clothes, 1.5 billion tons of greenhouse gas is emitted into the atmosphere.
Materials such as acrylic, nylon and polyester, decompose for decades and produce toxic substances during combustion, in addition, many of them are not covered with too harmless paint. The fact that some pieces of clothing cannot be destroyed by fire aggravates the situation - they become just rubbish.
And if the mass market burns things out of economy, it’s a cheap way to get rid of clothes (much more is needed for processing) and free shelves for new, “more fashionable” things, luxury brands do it primarily to preserve their image.
Burberry commented on the situation quite straightforwardly: it is more correct to get rid of things than to give to outlets or dealers who will sell these things illegally. Brands do not want their products to be distributed at a huge discount and be available "second-hand."
Now and then there are rumors on the Internet that Nike, Michael Kors and other brands have been spotted in getting rid of unnecessary products. True, they do not burn things, but throw them away, causing them intentional damage. So, the NY Times told how a New Yorker found almost a dozen bags of new Nike sneakers and cut out clothes. Sources in companies admit that the remaining things are deliberately rejected, so that they do not fall into the hands of resellers or homeless people, this again can "harm the brand image."
Is there an alternative?
Eco-activists call for alternative ways to "destroy" unnecessary clothing acceptable from an environmental and social point of view. For example, to rethink business strategies: overproduction can be reduced with the help of new technologies. Designer Stella McCartney has teamed up with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation to develop new durable and "smart" fabrics, technologies in the spirit of 3D printing, and so on.
But as long as it is not a question of the near future, supporters of conscious consumption are calling on brands to artificially reduce production, which will save money on creating things from more durable and high-quality materials - they will serve the consumer not for a couple of months, but for a couple of years. It is curious that the new business strategy of Burberry suggests that strategically inefficient affiliates will be disbanded, and to increase sales, the brand has already reduced prices for some products.
The industry should more often think about the new life of textile waste, activists insist. The ideologists of the Fashion Revolution movement, for example, advocate upcycling technology - the creation of collections of materials that remained after the release of the previous batch of things, or remnants that fell into the category of marriage. On the other hand, textile waste and residues can be given away to young or local brands that lack materials.
Photo: Burberry, MM6 Maison Margiela
