Bio
I'll just be over here drooling on the new J. Crew catalog ...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

Recent Comments

H&M Takes Disposable Fashion to a New Low

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 12
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

H&M, the Swedish retail giant who made "fast fashion" part of the shopping vernacular, is coming under fire for intentionally damaging unsold clothing -- and then dumping those pieces in the trash.

City University graduate student Cynthia Magnus noticed the bags of destroyed garments on her walk home; she contacted H&M about the practice, but didn't get any response -- so she went to the New York Times instead.

Writer Jim Dwyer, alerted by Magnus, took a trip to H&M's Herald Square store this week, to check out the dumpsters. "At the back entrance on 35th Street," he wrote in Wednesday's paper, "awaiting trash haulers, were bags of garments that appear to have never been worn. And to make sure that they never would be worn or sold, someone had slashed most of them with box cutters or razors, a familiar sight outside H & M’s back door." Dwyer also quotes Magnus' account of finding men's coats in the same dumpster, still with the tags on them, sliced so that the filling was spilling out of them, rendering them unwearable.

When Dwyer questioned store employees about the slashed and trashed clothing, he was told that "inquiries about its disposal practices had to be made to [H&M's] United States headquarters. However," he continued, "various officials did not respond to 10 inquiries made Tuesday by phone and e-mail."

"It is winter," Dwyer wrote. "A third of the city is poor. And unworn clothing is being destroyed nightly."

Eventually, H&M responded to the Times' request for a statement; Wednesday night, on the City Room blog, Dwyer quoted Nicole Christie, a spokeswoman for H&M in New York: "It won't happen again," Christie said. “We are committed 100 percent to make sure this practice is not happening anywhere else, as it is not our standard practice.” According to Christie, unworn clothing is donated to charity, not destroyed.

I found myself hoping, yesterday, that perhaps this one store in New York City was just breaking corporate policy -- maybe the employees were too lazy or too disorganized or too cranky to donate; maybe they thought it would just be more fun to slash up the clothes and put them in the dumpster. Anything to excuse the company for what is both a bad business practice and a bad social practice.

And that seemed to be H&M's take last night, when Nicole Christie expressed amazement that this one store was cutting up unsold garments. But then I heard from a former H&M employee who said that was indeed company policy, at least in her experience. The woman, who asked me not to use her name, worked in several H&M stores on the west coast, including a major flagship store.

"At each store I worked in up until I left in spring 09," she wrote in an email, "clothes/accessories/goods that were identified as 'damaged' would get pulled from the sales floor, intentionally destroyed by the staff (cut, ripped, etc) and then tossed in with the rest of our store's trash. This was part of our daily routine as stock personnel at each store, taking care of any 'damages' left hanging around at the end of the night."

So what constituted "damaged" at H&M? According to my source, "'damaged' goods were garments that showed up on the sales floor with some noticeable blemish. So garments with stains, small holes or tears, large snags, too many buttons missing, broken zippers, missing belts if the garment came with a belt attached, etc."

Were the damaged goods unwearable? Sometimes, she said, but not necessarily. "Obviously, a giant make-up stain doesn't make a shirt unwearable," she told me, "but it also looks bad to leave it out on the sales floor for customers. Some 'damages' would genuinely be unwearable of course, but I felt like most of them could have been salvaged or converted into another garment with only minor repair."

But, she added, "I never saw anything donated."

I understand the theory behind H&M's practice; in order to prevent fraudulent returns or resales, it is necessary to somehow mark discarded garments. Think about remaindered books, with their covers torn off, for example. They can be donated but not sold, and while they aren't as pretty as an intact book, they read just the same.

Of course, that leads to the larger question of why the H&M merchandise was left in a dumpster rather than at a donation center. "Directly around the corner from H&M," Jim Dwyer wrote, "is a big collection point for New York Cares,

  • 12
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
tranenella 5 pts

I know I'm really late commenting on this but I just found this article after hearing we area getting an H&M in KC. I worked for Victoria's Secret for 5+ years in the late 90's early 00's and their damage policy was the same. My boyfriend at the time was a Store Manager for what was then Structure(now Express for Men)their policy as well as Express was the same. Limited Corporation as a whole had that policy. I don't know if it's changed at this point.

GiftMommy 5 pts

I worked in retail for 10 years for a few different companies and each one had their own way of dealing with damages.  The company I liked the best was BCBG.  When we had an item that would be considered damaged because of makeup or some type of other stain, they had us take the damaged goods to the drycleaners and then resell the items in their new condition.

Another retailer I worked for would have us mark a line through the tag with a permanent red marker and then discount the item with the return policy of a final sale.

Another retailer had us cut the sewn in tag and do the as the retailer above.

I think H & M is stupid on so many levels.  Not only the obvious fact that they could have donated these item to a local shelter (tax write-off), but how about all the money they are wasting!  Why not get SOMETHING.  Even if they sold the garments for a quarter.  They are wasting more money by having employees on the clock ripping up these garments.

There CEO Karl-Johan Persson needs to be fired! 

Courtney Velasquez@theappleofmyeye
( http://twitter.com/theappleofmyeye )

http://thedigitalmommy.com
http://giftfullysimple.com
http://detroitmommies.com

bramble 5 pts

 I spent the day working to gather coats, blankets, sleeping bags, and mats for shelters and the homeless today and then I read this. Totally disgusting.

H&M cannot redeem themselves in my eyes...nor can other retailers behaving similarly.

Bramble

http://bramblescat.blogspot.com

urbanhobo 5 pts

The facebook post of this story had the question "Do you care?" in the header.  Are you kidding?!?!  After a long time of being content to lurk, that question motivated me to come here and register just so I could post a comment. I think this behavior is absolutely disgusting. H&M can be sure that I will *never* shop there again. How could anyone support this?  OK, even if you don't want people to "defraud" the company by tryign to return merchandise (but excuse me, what, are they going to come by with garbage bags full of stuff and do it all at once? Or, do they expect people to return shirts one by one to get the $9.99 store credit each time?)  -- anyway, even if you want to avoid that, there's obviously ways to do that and still give the clothes to charity.  It's such a sad commentary on our society that slashing up brand new clothes and trashing them is preferable than using them to help needy people.

hell in a handbasket, folks.

Susan Wagner 5 pts

WalMart was also mentioned in Dwyer's story, although I didn't pursue that here, for two reasons: They did a better job of dealing with the initial Times story, responding promptly to Dwyer's requests for a statement, and frankly, I have such a low opinion of them in the first place that the whole issue of brand loyalty wasn't there for me.

But that brings up another issue: Was H&M's real failure their policy, or their poor PR? Dwyer said that he contacted the company 10 times with no response -- what if they had responded immediately, like WalMart did?

There's a lot going on here, I think.

Susan Wagner writes about pragmatic fashion at The Working Closet ( http://www.workitmom.com/bloggers/workingcloset/ ) and chic suburban living at Friday Playdate ( http://fridayplaydate.com ).

mommydearest 5 pts

I've been Shattered. They can't give it away on 7th AVE...nor seems 35th STREET. Shame on you H&M...You can't always get what you want...but if you tried...you just might find...you could have given something needed.

makehappymama 5 pts

I'm guessing H&M isn't the only company doing this. I hope this gets BIG news attention so 1) we can find out which stores are doing it and 2) those stores will swiftly change their practices. Wasting clothes in this day and age is immoral.

ckinnunen 5 pts

I do not hesitate to discontinue shopping at companies that participate in these kinds of practices.  

Fluid Pudding 5 pts

Until I hear of a genuine apology and a (huge) donation to charity, I won't go there.

RedMongoose 5 pts

Wow =( glad I stopped shopping their after their prices (but not quality) went up.

Rita Arens 7 pts

We don't have an H&M in Kansas City, so I don't often buy their clothes. And I don't normally boycott, but hearing about this in the midst of a huge deep freeze -- unacceptable. H&M, you just lost a target-demo customer.

Rita Arens writes at Surrender Dorothy ( http://surrenderdorothy.typepad.com ) and BlogHer and is the editor of Sleep is for the Weak ( http://tinyurl.com/9pg62e ). She is BlogHer's assignment and syndication editor.

foodiemama 5 pts

10 years ago I would have put fashion before social resonsibility, but now I definitely factor in a company's practices when making purchases. I feel immense guilt about throwing away one of my "unfashionable" sweaters or my husband's old t-shirts, wondering if there's someone out there who would be grateful to have it. Despite my hectic schedule, I trek to Goodwill to drop off a crooked lamp or coat in the hope that someone will be able to use it. So to find that sheer laziness causes a company to discard its slightly flawed products rather than finding a good use for them makes me really mad.

I do love H&M for it's cute, affordable clothes, but I don't want to support a company that only cares about its bottom line. I've found that "you get what you pay for" is a very accurate phrase. Sometimes the deals there seem too good to be true - now we know why.

 www.quinoaandcornchips.blogspot.com ( http://www.quinoaandcornchips.blogspot.com )