Burberry applies
the law of profit
Last September Burberry
announced
that
its Treorchy factory was no
longer
viable and would close this
March
with the loss of 309 jobs.
Until the summer of 2006 , it is probably true to say that the village of Treorchy was little known outside Wales – except to devoted enthusiasts of Welsh male
voice choirs. Nestling
in the shadow of steep and
rocky hills, the village lies at
the head of the Rhondda
Valley and is typical of the
abandoned communities
that were originally
established to mine the now
worked-out coal of the South
Wales valleys.
The Rhondda Valley is today an area of demoralising deprivation,characterised by dire poverty, poor housing and a drug problem that is almost out of control. Many of Treorchy’s ageing 8,000 strong community have chronic health and anxiety conditions. Unemployment is abnormally high and such local jobs as exist, mainly in retail, are difficult
to come by. The
village has one large employer
of note – the factory owned by
the iconic brand name Burberry.
Burberry was established in the middle of the nineteenth century when its founder Thomas Burberry invented a method of waterproofing cloth, which he called gabardine. Since the 980s the company has successfully expanded the brand into a variety of luxury and fashion goods, including clothing, sportswear, watches, and perfumes and has enjoyed rapid international growth. Burberry’s first half results to September 2006 showed an increase in the company’s turnover of 10 percent to nearly £400
million and an increase in
operating profit of 7
percent to £84 million. (burberryplc.com,
14 November 2006 .)
The employees of
Burberry in Treorchy had
every reason to feel assured –
after all, it had been their sacrifices that had contributed to the company’s startling success. But the events that were about to unfold showed their confidence had been seriously misplaced.
At the beginning of September Burberry announced that its Treorchy factory was no longer viable and that it would close in March 2007 with the loss of 309 jobs. The company said that rising costs could no longer be recovered by raising worker
productivity and that
skill shortages and a
decline in the local supplier network
meant that the factory no longer
had a future. Burberry had been the community’s main employer for generations, and its workers, many of whom had been employed for 40 years, were stunned. Their union, the GMB, had received no warning of the
closure or of
company plans to transfer the
production of designer polo shirts to China.
Outraged
Burberry workers and their
union organised themselves to
resist the closure. While public protests against factory closures are not new, what was different about this campaign was its success in turning the threat of closure into a public relations battle that rapidly mobilised public opinion. They lobbied politicians and successfully sought the support of celebrities to keep the issue in the public eye to shame the company into reconsidering and to persuade customers not to buy the its products.
The campaign quickly became a public debate about whether a successful
company hailed as a
British icon and already
enjoying healthy profits should
simply be ‘allowed’ to
pack up and abandon a small
community. Burberry
is heavily dependent on the
sales of its goods in other countries.
In these countries the
company has always
marketed itself as a
quintessentially ‘British’ brand, an appeal that has been summed up by the journalist Janet Street-Porter with the words, ‘To many, Burberry is just as British as the Union Jack’.
Burberry workers and politicians have endeavoured to exploit this connection to argue that if the company’s success is so dependent on its ‘Britishness’, then it has an obligation to take care of its workers in Britain and treat them ‘fairly.’ Such appeals to economic patriotism have invoked issues of corporate accountability and nurtured a view amongst politicians that, while this type of behaviour may be expected from ‘foreign’ companies, this does not mean it is acceptable from a British employer.
The support from celebrity figures, many representative of the kind of people who have the money to buy the Burberry brand, has been an important factor in keeping the closure in the news. Amongst those who have offered their support - promoting their ‘Welsh credentials’ and enhancing their own public image in the process - are Bryn Terfel, Emma Thompson, and actor Ioan Gruffudd, who until recently modelled Burberry fashionware. More recently the tax exile entertainer Tom Jones, who hasn’t lived in Wales for decades, has added his support and Manchester United’s Sir Alex Ferguson has also lent his name to the campaign.
Other objectors include the
Prince of Wales and interestingly the Church of England, which has investments in
the company and has written
to Burberry questioning its proposals
to close its factory. There is
no evidence, however that, as a
shareholder in the company, the Church is offering to forgo its dividend if Burberry keeps its
factory open.
The politicians – with an eye on this May’s Welsh National Assembly elections – have also been trumpeting their support for the stricken workforce.
^ Top ^
|