

They also have made a system where “ any flagged items are now discussed in meetings that bring together various departments. To reduce this room for error “ there are now opportunities to flag garments at every stage of the process and make notes about particular sensitivities ranging from where it should (and shouldn’t) be sold to how it should be styled to who should be wearing it on the site” (Wang, 2019). Although they had a seven step system there was still large room for error.

We will thoroughly investigate why this happened to prevent this type of mistake from happening again” (Tan, 2018).Įven with efforts to fix the issue the fallout was severe. It is obvious that our routines have not been followed properly. Therefore, we have not only removed the image from our channels, but also the garment from our product offering. We are deeply sorry that the picture was taken, and we also regret the actual print. This was their statement: “We understand that many people are upset about the image. They also promoted a Annie Wu, a Taiwanese immigrant, to a new position as the global head of diversity and incusivity based in Stockholm. H&M reacted by removing the sweatshirt from stores, apologized on all of their social media accounts, and apologized through statements to the media.

These comments were met with vicous backlash, even being called a “traitor to her own community.” The child’s mother also made comments about the issue that also inadvertently fueled the crisis. In the photo the child had a somber look on his face, hands in his pockets, and a stiff stance almost as if he were aware of the humiliation. Multiple factors contributed to fueling of the crisis.
