Strategic CSR - Fur

In class, when I want to demonstrate to students how most things (other than the natural sciences) are social constructs and society's values can shift, relatively quickly, I use the example of fur. 50-60 years ago, I argue, wearing fur was a sign of status; today it is unacceptable, but who knows what society will think about fur in the future. After all, we have used parts of animals for all of our existence – there is nothing objectively 'wrong' about wearing fur. What society thinks about wearing fur is impactful, however, especially if you are a company producing fur or using it to make clothes. I find that trying to understand how society changes its opinion so dramatically (and occasionally rapidly) on such issues is extremely challenging. All of a sudden, or over a long period of time, we stop believing one thing and start believing something else. And logic often has nothing to do with it.

Anyway, the article in the url below suggests I need to update my example as, apparently, fur is back:

"A few weeks before the Manhattan Vintage Show opened this month, its owner, Amy Abrams, was predicting a "fur-a-palooza," with vendors fielding an uptick in demand for fur. … The racks of fox, mink and Mongolian at booths, including the Igala NYC and the Jennie Walker Archive, which was selling a sable coat for $2,495, were swarmed by shoppers, many already wearing fur."

The shift seems sudden, and turns back a slide away from fur that played out over decades:

"It happened slowly — Calvin Klein banned fur in 1994; Ralph Lauren in 2006 — and then all at once. After Gucci announced in 2017 that it would eliminate real fur in its collections, the big luxury fashion houses followed: Michael Kors, Burberry, Prada, Versace, Tom Ford, Marc Jacobs and more. Since introducing her label in 2001, Stella McCartney has been a fiercely vocal animal and cruelty-free advocate. Fendi, which was founded in 1925 as a fur and leather shop in Rome and is owned by LVMH, remains one of the last luxury holdouts."

As a result, the "fur industry" may not be positioned for the revival:

"According to the Fur Free Alliance, global fur production is down 85 percent in the last decade. Roughly 20 million animals were killed as part of the fur trade in 2023 versus 140 million in 2014. The number of fur farms in the European Union fell to 1,088 in 2023 from 4,350 in 2018."

The moral compromise that many appear to be making is that they are wearing "pre-owned" fur clothes, which aligns with the recent rise in popularity of thrift shopping:

"For years, in much of the United States and Europe, wearing real fur has felt taboo. Except, suddenly, some people don't seem to care — especially if the wearer can assert the mantle of 'vintage,' as no animals were freshly killed and upcycling old clothes is more virtuous than buying new."

Some are even presenting vintage as the sustainable option:

"'I think people are really misunderstanding vintage fur versus faux fur,' [Carly Mark, the designer of the fashion line/art project Puppets and Puppets] said. Vintage, in her eyes, is the superior sustainable option. She cited plastics and microplastics in faux fur fibers, often made from petroleum-based materials, as 'worse for the environment in the big picture.'"

Understandably, animal rights activists are not impressed:

"Animal rights groups see vintage fur as a dangerous trend. "If someone sees a person wearing used fur and they don't know it's used, they could very well go buy new fur," said PJ Smith, the director of fashion policy for the Humane Society of the United States."

Take care

David 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6e)

© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e  

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Wearing It Proudly, and Pre-Owned

By Jessica Iredale

February 16, 2025

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

ST11

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/16/style/vintage-fur-trend.html

 

Strategic CSR - Burberry

The article in the url below shines some light on a practice in the fashion industry that I was not aware of:

 

"Every winter the Tuscan workshops of Stefano Ricci, a high-end menswear label, box up the year's unsold products—from cashmere suits and silk ties to finely woven cotton shirts—and send them off on trucks to be burned."

 

I thought unsold items were shipped off to discount outlets although, now it is pointed out to me, it makes sense to burn the clothes (from a business perspective). In fact, there seem to be two main reasons for doing this:

 

"Destroying unsold inventory is a widely used but rarely discussed technique that luxury companies perform to maintain the scarcity of their goods and the exclusivity of their brands. In Italy and many other countries, they can also claim a tax credit for destroying the inventory."

 

This became a story, however, because Burberry decided to change its policy:

 

"On Thursday, British fashion label Burberry Group PLC thrust the technique into the spotlight by announcing it would immediately stop destroying unsold stock, bowing to pressure from environmental groups who say it is wasteful. The amount of stock Burberry destroys had risen sharply in recent years, from £5.5 million in fiscal year 2013 to £28.6 million in the last fiscal year."

 

Although, it seems that the rest of the industry is resisting Burberry's move:

 

"Other high-end brands, however, say destroying inventory is a necessary evil. Goods that end up in outlet stores or in the gray market, priced at a steep discount, contradict the industry's main sales pitch: that luxury goods command higher prices because they are inherently more valuable."

 

I'm sure the tax write-off is nice, too. While some in the industry will resist, however, Burberry (and Cartier) see value in changing the practice:

 

"Compagnie Financière Richemont , the Swiss luxury conglomerate that owns Cartier, spent hundreds of millions of euros in recent years buying back unsold watches, which were piling up at retailers because of a drop in demand from Chinese consumers. The company pried off the jewels and melted them down, but is reusing the materials. Burberry's announcement was aimed at younger shoppers who are environmentally conscious and, increasingly, a core demographic for the luxury-goods business. Brands across the industry are abandoning fur; imposing animal-welfare standards on their suppliers; and touting their policies for recycling and reducing waste. On Thursday, Burberry said it too was ditching the use of fur."

 

For others, however, the business argument is more complex:

 

"At Stefano Ricci, executives see the destruction of inventory as a service to the customer. Clients don't want to spend thousands of dollars on a suit, only to see the same item a few months later selling at an outlet store for half the price, they say."

 

Take care

David

 

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (4e)

© Sage Publications, 2017

 

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Burberry Disavows Burning

By Matthew Dalton

September 7, 2018

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

B2

https://www.wsj.com/articles/burning-luxury-goods-goes-out-of-style-at-burberry-1536238351