I mentioned the H & M “scandal” in NYC in a post the other day about green and greenwashing. In all fairness, I received this email from H & M in response to this query and wanted to post it. Here is the email that I got:
Thank you for contacting H&M regarding the recent article in the New York Times.
H&M is committed to taking responsibility for how our operations affect people and the environment. Globally, we donate garments that do not meet our quality requirements to organizations such as Gifts In Kind International, UNHCR, Caritas, the Red Cross and Helping Hands. Since 2000, H&M US has donated more than 350 pallets of our products to charitable organizations throughout the United States and around the world via Gifts In Kind International.
When possible, we also donate garments that have been returned to our stores. However, we do not donate clothes that do not meet our safety requirements, chemical restrictions or are damaged. We have agreements with reputable aid organizations in most of our sales countries. In total, more than 500,000 pieces of H&M garments were donated during 2009.
We have thoroughly examined the situation surrounding the garments found outside of our 34th Street store. We have determined that these garments were damaged, did not meet our safety standards or had been used for in-store display. For example, shoes that had been punctured for use on mannequins. The garments in question were not excess inventory that did not sell well.
Going forward, we are reevaluating what we categorize as “damaged” garments and we continue to be committed to donating as many of these items as possible to our aid organization partners.
Overall, I do not know what to think. I have been to H & M stores, and there is little in the way of displays that warrant large cuts and slashes across merchandise. I am also a bit dubious, as since this is a known spot to folks who pick through trash for treasures, that this is an isolated incident. I am glad that they donate factory items that cannot be reused, but is it enough? I have a long history of retail, so I also get that there is always a possibility of people trying to return items to the store for cash, when they never purchased it in the first place. That being said, simply removing the tag could be enough to solve the problem. In general, H & M does have a pretty good track record in terms of charity and the environment, so I can cut them a little slack. On the other hand, since they are launching a new line of eco-friendly products, They should have systems in place to reduce their waste and consumption. Perhaps only second quality shoes that could not be donated should have been used for display, or their merchandising team could have come up with a display plan that didn’t involve destroying perfectly good merchandise for the sole purpose of putting shoes on a mannequin. Knowing that this is a multi-national corporation with a huge team that plans displays for stores across the globe, what does it say about their team that they decided to cut up hundred (thousands? ) of shoes to put them on mannequins? I remain unconvinced in their true commitment to the environment, and will refrain from giving them any of my money for a while until I get better answers. This situation sits right at that border of green for the sake of being green and for the sake of greenwashing.
Here is the respnse I sent back to them:
Just to be clear. You are a multinational corporation with a merchandising team that plans displays for its stores around the globe. Your team thought the best use of perfectly good clothing was to punch holes in it so you can put it on display? I remain skeptical. Given the thought, time and effort that was put into your new line of eco friendly clothing for the spring, it seems to me that your merchandising team should have been a part of the overall planning in your stores. If you want to more beyond greenwashing and into sustainability, then the entire corporate team needs to be involved. Adding eco fabric lines to your palette of choices is great, but given the state of the environment, far from being good enough. Please consider a corporate wide approach to reducing waste and impact on the environment, or you will not convince the smart shoppers that you are doing more than greenwashing. Until then, I think my money can best be spent elsewhere.
I am posting your letter and my response at www.greatlakesgreenpages.com
Tags: greenwashing, retail, shopping
Many of the readers of my blog do so on Facebook and I get comments there all the time. This one I felt needed to reach the site:
Robert, the writer did another follow-up story yesterday. It was interesting. I’m tempted to email him and ask for a list of the retail establishments that participate in this horrible practice of destroying clothes (he says he received emails from people who work at other retailers that do this as well). I’d love to see that list get published and see what their executive teams have to say for themselves.
It also mentioned branding; that brands pay billions of dollars for models and celebrities to endorse their brands, and if the homeless are wearing the pieces that don’t sell, what does that say about the brand (in a negative connotation)?
In response, I will just say that that is exactly what is wrong. In order to be a successful brand, you have to produce more clothes than you can sell. To promote them, you spend a pile of cash so they will sell for more. Leftovers have to be shipped out of the general buying area or they can diminish the efforts to make the brand more trendy and expensive. In tight economic times, no store can really afford to ship its clothes overseas when they are “last season.” Thus they end up slashed and go to the landfill. I get the reasons, I just do not agree. Besides, if that guy begging for change on the corner is wearing a Christian LaCroix shirt and Hugo Boss slacks, they are likely to find less sympathy and those folks who buys these designers are less likely to find them upscale enough to continue spending the huge piles of cash that it takes to purchase them. Perhaps we need a new store that takes in these rejects, holds them for a year or so, then resells them at a cheap price and uses the money to support charities like shelters and hires underprivileged people to operate the stores….