I read where Abercrombie burns all it's unsold clothes. They won't donate any unsold clothes because they believe it's a bad image for their company for poor people to wear their clothes.

 

 

 

Anyone?

If so, sounds like the polar opposite of Toms.

I know someone who works for A/F corporate. I'll ask them.

I know I just read not too long ago that H&M stores just changed their practices on destroying un-purchased merchandise after they were called to the carpet for essentially ignoring the needy in the world. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if Abercrombie & Fitch does it.

I know I just read not too long ago that H&M stores just changed their practices on destroying un-purchased merchandise after they were called to the carpet for essentially ignoring the needy in the world. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if Abercrombie & Fitch does it.

 

The challenge for anyone with a product is that the excess and obsolete ends up in the market anyway. If it is a warrantable durable good, it becomes a real issue of potential ongoing costs and/or liability. For clothes probably just the fact that they will be sold with a potential detrimental impact on the market price for the goods. Who is to say this company isn't donating a lot to the poor already?

The challenge for anyone with a product is that the excess and obsolete ends up in the market anyway. If it is a warrantable durable good, it becomes a real issue of potential ongoing costs and/or liability. For clothes probably just the fact that they will be sold with a potential detrimental impact on the market price for the goods. Who is to say this company isn't donating a lot to the poor already?

 

Well in the article I read about H&M, one of their company officers acknowledged that their policy was to destroy everything rather than donate to the poor. I don't see why they couldn't do something to "deface" the clothes and then send them to the real needy of the world. When there are homeless people without clean clothes in the US, and people living without anything in third world countries, I can't see people turning down defaced clothes if they had been, for the sake of argument, dropped into black dye to destroy their mainstream "designer" desirability before being sent out to those less fortunate.

Well in the article I read about H&M, one of their company officers acknowledged that their policy was to destroy everything rather than donate to the poor. I don't see why they couldn't do something to "deface" the clothes and then send them to the real needy of the world. When there are homeless people without clean clothes in the US, and people living without anything in third world countries, I can't see people turning down defaced clothes if they had been, for the sake of argument, dropped into black dye to destroy their mainstream "designer" desirability before being sent out to those less fortunate.

 

That sounds like a good plan. I too hate seeing things wasted.

I can't see people turning down defaced clothes if they had been, for the sake of argument, dropped into black dye to destroy their mainstream "designer" desirability before being sent out to those less fortunate.

I've heard of companies doing this. That's why you often see kids in the some of the world's poorest countries wearing American made T-shirts and other clothes.

What if they donate a lot of cash to charities instead ?

What if they donate a lot of cash to charities instead ?

 

That would be great, but still a waste if its true.

On one hand, if true, I think this is horrible, but on the other hand should companies be expected to engage in practices that hurt their business/bottom line?

That would be great, but still a waste if its true.

 

On one hand, if true, I think this is horrible, but on the other hand should companies be expected to engage in practices that hurt their business/bottom line?

 

I struggle criticizing companies/people when I hear what they DO NOT donate to. We don't know what they actually do donate to. I know that A&F contributed $10M to a hospital in Columbus. That works for me.

 

If they want to protect their brand I get that.

I did a case study on A&F in my management class in college and I know they had a huge charitable presence.

 

While I don't agree with destroying the clothing (if true), I also completely understand them wanting to protect their image. Fact is, quite a few that purchase A&F would be more hesitant to do so if they saw poor or homeless people wearing the same items.

I agree with the last two posts, AF could literally put themselves out of business.

Sounds like an urban legend. 1. The clothes are probably 100% sold into the channel. 2. 'Burning' would be a pollution problem, eh? Talk about double whammy...withhold the clothes and pollute the air.