burberry burns bags, clothes and perfume worth £28million to stop it being sold cheaply

burberry burns bags, clothes and perfume worth £28million to stop it being sold cheaply

its been revealed that burberry has set fire to more than £28 million worth of its products over the past year in a bid to stop people from getting their hands on the brand’s clothes and counterfeiting them. as well as bags and clothes, the luxury british brand burnt £10.4 million of beauty items, according to detail in its annual report.

burberry burns bags, clothes and perfume worth £28 million to stop it being sold cheaply

images © burberry



destroying products is common practice for the industry, who want to protect intellectual property. luxury brands including chanel and louis vuitton also burn or destroy unsold stock. according to the evening standard, richemont, the owner of cartier and montblanc, destroyed more than £400 million of watches over a two-year period after an excess in goods in the asian markets.

burberry burns bags, clothes and perfume worth £28 million to stop it being sold cheaply



critics of these methods have called out the luxury fashion brand, questioning why the company doesn’t donate the clothes to charity. amid these criticisms burberry’s defence is that the energy generated from burning its products was captured, making it environmentally friendly.

  • Its not just luxury brands to quote luxurytoday; “According to Bloomberg, H&M’s products are helping a Swedish power plant reduce the use of coal by burning clothes instead. The Vasteras plant burned about 15 tons of discarded clothes from H&M so far in 2017, compared with about 400,000 tons of trash. Bestseller (the parent company of Vero Moda and Jack & Jones) burned even more clothing than H&M last year in Denmark, and luxury labels are known to destroy unsold clothes. “

  • I wrote a piece about the reputational risk around this kind of behaviour. TL:DR: it’s an opportunity for creative reinvention https://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2018/07/19/burberry-burning-28m-stock-protect-its-brand-could-have-the-opposite-effect

    reuben turner
  • They don’t donate because they don’t want their items associated with the “less fortunate.” They’re protecting their brand. I don’t agree with it but it’s what it is.

  • “energy generated from burning” – wat sheer nonsense. A minute fraction of the water, materials, minerals, energy and human effort that went into it. Burberry should be rebranded into “Burnburry” a company of “waste and landfill”. Waring these clothes are then at least a crystal clear statement of the values you represent.

  • In the past Emeco destroyed counterfeit Navy Chairs and recycled the aluminum to make new authentic Navy Chairs. Today we donate counterfeit Navy Chairs seized by Customs and Border Protection to a third world country through World Vision.

    Gregg Buchbinder CEO Emeco
  • Burning clothes and bags is ok because it’s “environmental friendly”? So wrong at so many levels
    Will not buy Burberry

  • Making shit we don’t need so it can be burnt to generate energy? There are so many things that are wrong this, I don’t even know where to start.

    Arnaud Marthouret

have something to add? share your thoughts in our comments section below.
all comments are reviewed for the purposes of moderation before publishing.

comments policy


a diverse digital database that acts as a valuable guide in gaining insight and information about a product directly from the manufacturer, and serves as a rich reference point in developing a project or scheme.

design news

keep up with our daily and weekly stories
506,175 subscribers
- see sample
- see sample
designboom magazine