My first reaction is surprise. I never knew companies did this. After reading the article, I can see the reasoning behind this.
Part of me is surprised at the amount of stock wasted and wonders why they don't do a better job predicting the amount sold each year. Scarcity makes the value rise, and I would think that if they did a better job of predicting the market, they could increase their profits even more. But, what do I know? I'm a stay at home wife who knits & sells the excess because I enjoy it.
The other side of me sees this as being advantagous.
Burning the items and then claiming them to be "environmentally friendly" by recapturing the energy? Eh...I can see it being environmentally friendly in that the items didn't get put in the landfills. The incredible amount of clothing that people purchase and subsequently don't wear or wear one time and get rid of is astounding. You can see that evidenced every time you go into Goodwill or Salvation Army. When the floods happened in Lousiana several years ago, we went to help rebuild. Clothing donations were so "generous" they laid in literal heaps and molded from the humidity. I can only imagine this happens time and time again at relief efforts. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of clothing are going into the landfills. People that were doing relief work now refuse clothing items.
It is a shame that to protect their investment (brand), Burberry had to go to such extremes I feel that the rich may have a different mentality about their clothing than I do, however. I don't feel like I need to have "exclusive" clothes, nor would I feel like I was wearing cheaper clothing if I found out that they sold excess stock to TJ Maxx.
Just my $.02