Burberry is no exception in the luxury sector

In his annual report, Burberry claims to have "physically destroyed" in 2017 articles worth 31 million euros. More than a third of these destructions involve cosmetics, which the group justified by the sale of its license perfumes and cosmetics to the American group Coty.

The British luxury brand has badured working "with specialized companies that are capable to recover the energy of the operation "of destruction. "When we have to destroy products, we do it responsibly and we continue to look for ways to reduce and upgrade our waste," said a spokesman. Tim Farron, environment critic for the Liberal Democrats opposition party, described the group's practice as "scandalous", saying "recycling is much better for the environment than burning to generate energy"

A widespread practice in the world of luxury

But if the spotlight is on Burberry, the brand is only one example among others in a world of luxury broken with these destruction of stocks. unsold, experts said. "This is a widespread practice in fashion, it is commonplace.All groups do it in the high-end and the very high-end because there are very few balances and it is necessary to destroy the stocks", summarizes Arnaud Cadart, portfolio manager at Flornoy & Associés. "The more we do fashion, the more we have short cycles, and the more it is destroyed, and once we have made some private sales to employees and journalists, we bazarde," he says. It stresses that these destructions are recorded in the financial accounts of companies but in a "legible way, often in a line called inventory write-downs". For the reasons given are "the obsolescence of products" and "seasons or collections completed" for LVMH while Kering or Hermes advance "the prospects of flow."

"Ni green, nor socially responsible"

] "It's clear that it goes bad" with the public opinion "because it's not a green practice, and maybe it's not socially responsible because there are people who do not have no clothes to put on the back, "says Arnaud Cadart. "Yes, there is a moral, ethical, and environmental protection issue, but from a legal point of view, these brands are destroying authentic products that belong to them, products at the end of their life or in season. they can do what they want, "adds Boriana Guimberteau.

This badociate lawyer of the firm FTPA, specializing in intellectual property and trademark law, highlights " the conflict between the brand image that wants to sell exclusive products in an exclusive distribution network and not to flood the market with products that are at the end of the season. "

For the Union des Manufacturers intellectual protection and the fight against counterfeiting, "there are different reasons" for a brand to destroy its stocks: "To prevent the products from being resold or fall into parallel networks but also sometimes for reasons related to the protection of consumers, when it comes for example perfumes, cosmetics, or products that have an expiry date, and that it is necessary to destroy ". And when a brand destroys its stocks, it can also be a way to "protect its intellectual property, which is its heritage," says Delphine Sarfati-Sobreira, Executive Director of Unifab. It deplores "a false lawsuit" against Burberry, and considers that "a company that destroys products will necessarily reproduce others, and thus allow a certain number of employees to work."