5 Apparel Brands That Failed But

Saved Their Reputations

Posted by SgT Group on 22 March 2017

In the fashion industry, specifically, when it comes to fast fashion, errors are almost
inevitable. The speed at which garments are produced have drastically increased in order
to meet consumer demands and unfortunately, quality control often takes a back seat
during production.In this blog post, well take a quick look at 5 apparel brands that failed,
and how they turned around their damaged reputations to revive their apparel quality
management systems:

H&M

H&M, often referred to as a pioneer of fast fashion, is one of the worlds largest and fastest
growing retailers and is extremely popular among consumers for its ability to produce
affordable trendy products at an incredible speed. The idea is that cheap designer knock-
offs are created, worn only while theyre on trend and then replaced by the next seasons
trend pieces. Unfortunately, this cycle of production has destructive effects on the
environment due to its large water and resources requirements. In 2011, H&M along with
other brands were criticized by Greenpeace in their report titled Dirty Laundry. In addition
to this, H&M have been found to make use of Youngor Textile Groups factories for
manufacturing which is known for releasing hazardous chemicals, mainly PFCs,
Alkylphenols, and hormone disruptors into waterways by the Pearl and Yangtze River
deltas.

The fix:
H&M denied using wet processing at Youngors factories and in an attempt to preserve
their brands reputation, they embarked on a series of sustainable Look Good, Do Good,
Feel Good marketing campaignswhich have been prominent in their marketing strategy to
this day. H&M continues to tackle sustainability issues such as ethical working conditions,
environmental conservation, and animal testing in order to provide sustainable fashion.

Zara

In our previous blog post, we discussed Zaras quality mishap in 2011 when the brand
failed three quality control tests on their garments, making them the only brand to have
failed three successive quality tests! Now, well take a look at an incident in 2012 where
Zara, along with 20 other popular fashion brands, were accused by Greenpeace of selling
clothing contaminated with hazardous hormone disrupting, cancer causing chemicals which
are harmful to customers and the environment. These harmful chemicals contribute to toxic
water pollution. Greenpeace launched their Detox campaign which saw thousands of
Zaras fans leaving comments on their Facebook Page urging the company to Detox,
expressing their desire for fashion without pollution. More than 300, 000 fans signed up
for the Detox Zara petition or emailed and tweeted Zara directly, demanding the change to
be made.

The Fix:
Zara felt immense pressure from Greenpeace and the public to make a change and after
Greenpeace campaigners began a conversation with Zara about eliminating the release of
harmful chemicals during the production of their clothes, the brand decided to do something
out the problem. In November 2012, Zara committed to eliminate all discharge of harmful
chemicals from its supply chain by 2020. Zara also vowed that by 2013, 100 of its suppliers
will make information about the release of hazardous chemicals available to the public and
the media. Successfully encouraging Zara to make the change was a huge breakthrough
for Greenpeace as Zara being one of the worlds largest fast fashion brands, has the ability
to set an example for other fashion brands all over the world.
Nike

Nike hardly needs any introduction, controlling an estimated 62% of athletic footwear brand
share in the US, theres no denying the brands popularity and you can probably recall your
first pair of Nikes, right? However, in the early 90s, Nike burned under the public eyes
magnifying glass because of the its use of sweatshops and maquiladoras in order to
produce their products. The working conditions were horrendous where workers were
forced to work overtime in small areas, with very little air for as little as 14 cents an hour.
There were also allegations of child labor, verbal and physical abuse as well as unjustified
termination. This lead to the public breaking out in humiliating public protests at the
Olympics and Nike stores and as a result, in 1998, Nike experienced a dramatic decline in
sales. Nikes negative reputation took 7 years to shake.

The fix:
Experts attribute Nikes change in perception to their honest and transparent approach to
the labor scandal that occurred as well as their ability to admit to their mistakes. Former
CEO Phil Knight started to aggressively make internal changes in the company and
took corrective steps to raise the minimum wage, improve labor conditions and ensured
clean air within the factories. Nike also produced multiple reports in which they reveal
conditions and wages within their factories. These reports are still published today on their
website.

Lululemon Athletica

Canadian athletic apparel retailer Lululemons leading workout-wear are worn

predominantly by Canadian college students and yoga enthusiasts. In March 2013,
Lululemon made a costly mistake in the production of their popular womens yoga pants
which lead to the recall of a massive 17% of garments and a loss of 67 million dollars! The
yoga pants fabric was see-through or too sheer. According to some, this was done as an
attempt to decrease manufacturing costs. This caused loyal customers and investors to
question the brands motives.

The fix:
Excuse the pun here, but once again, transparency was the key. Lulu handled the crisis
with explicitness by offering a full explanation and refunds to the public and promised to
have a new and improved version of the yoga pants back on the shelves within 90 days.
Former CEO Christine Day also immediately fired their chief product officer.

GAP