Burberry isn’t progressive for promising to stop burning its own products, and we all know it

When half the world goes hungry, and millions of people don’t have access to clean water, the designer brand was busily destroying perfectly good clobber just to keep it off the streets

Here’s what Burberry ought to have said in the wake of the furore that was – I hesitate to say "sparked" – by the revelation that it burned more than £28m worth of unsold clothes, perfumes and accessories last year:

“On reflection we recognise that this was a mistake on our part and quite clearly the wrong thing to have done. For that we unreservedly apologise. We will cease the practice with immediate effect and investigate better ways of handling surplus stock. And we’ll stop using fur too.”

Here’s what Burberry CEO Marco Gobbetti actually said: “Modern luxury means being socially and environmentally responsible. This belief is core to us at Burberry and key to our long-term success. We are committed to applying the same creativity to all parts of Burberry as we do to our products.”

That quote was to be found nestling underneath a long list of all the wonderful things Burberry says it is doing to make the world a better place. In May 2018, the firm “became a core partner of the Make Fashion Circular initiative convened by the Ellen McArthur Foundation”. In the past year it has also “created a unique partnership with sustainable luxury company Elvis & Kresse to transform 120 tonnes of leather offcuts into new products over the next five years”.

But wait, there’s more: “We have also supported the Burberry Foundation in establishing the Burberry Material Futures Research Group with the Royal College of Art to invent new sustainable materials.”

Still not finished: “We continue to invest in communities, from supporting young people in disadvantaged areas of London and Yorkshire, to developing a more inclusive and sustainable cashmere industry in Afghanistan. These efforts have been recognised by Burberry’s inclusion in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index for the third consecutive year.”

If you said "er, what?" after reading that last bit then snap. Here’s my suggested translation of that little lot: “Hey you guys, those of you who buy £1,500 trench coats for the purposes of showing how much richer you are than the little people. We want you to feel as good as possible about that. And we don’t want you to run the risk of some unwashed hippy in a Fairtrade shawl chucking a free-range egg at you when you’re having your credentials okayed outside Annabel’s. So we’re going to stop burning stuff and using fur. Yay us. And yay you. But, especially, yay us.”

It bears repeating again and again and again: this company actually burned £28m plus worth of stock last year to protect itself from the risk of it being sold on the cheap to the plebs and damaging its “brand values”. What sort of values are those?

When half the world goes hungry, and millions of people don’t have access to clean water, Burberry was busily destroying perfectly good clobber simply to keep it off the streets, and away from the football terraces where knock-offs have proved popular. Sometimes you really do have to wonder whether the universe wouldn’t be best off chucking a rogue comet our way and having done with us.

All the other stuff Burberry touts about how cuddly it is; it’s a bit like someone at one of those vulture funds that specialise in buying up the debt that cripples impoverished nations contributing £3 a month by text after seeing one of those cable TV adds soliciting donations to WaterAid. Look, I get it. There aren’t many angels in the industry that clothe us and put shoes on our feet.

We’re five years on from the Rana Plaza collapse and there are still questions being raised about the safety of Bangladeshi garment workers who earn pennies for producing what we wear.

Earlier this week, I hailed Nike’s decision to stick its middle finger up at Donald Trump by making Colin Kaepernick, the NFL quarterback who has been unable to find a team since kneeling at the national anthem to protest racial injustice, the face of its "Just Do It" anniversary campaign.

While the decision, even if commercially motivated, was bold and laudable, it and other sportswear manufacturers have faced criticism over working conditions in the factories where their products are made. Nike has also been grappling with a scandal over the culture confronting female workers in the US (the CEO did, however, do something that was absent from Burberry’s statement by issuing an apology).

Fast fashion, the stuff that those of us without access to a Burberry subsiding trust fund often wear, is contributing to the environmental destruction our kids are going to pay a heavy price for. And one does rather wonder if others in the “luxury” bracket have quietly been doing exactly what Burberry was doing before it was revealed to the world.

However, none of that serves to excuse its simply appalling behaviour, or the staggeringly tone deaf statement announcing its end.