My name is Clea, and I recently had a discussion about the consequences of shoplifting and whether it is morally right. Unfortunately, I didn’t have enough specialist knowledge to be able to assess which economic processes are triggered by theft.
Hence my question: what influence does shoplifting (apart from moral and cultural values) theoretically have on the economic system? Who bears the consequences?
From an anti-capitalist, left-wing perspective, does it make sense to argue that stealing weakens chains such as H&M or ZARA? Can shoplifting therefore be seen indirectly as an act against their morally questionable production processes? Or do the consequences ultimately fall back on consumers, with prices rising due to lower takings? Or is it even the production workers who end up having to bear the consequences?
Thank you very much for your question. It has two aspects: firstly, whether shoplifting in the case described is legitimate , and secondly, whether it would have any effect .
Impact only through volume
Firstly, regarding the second aspect. Fast fashion is based on products of comparatively low value but high sales volumes. Furthermore, the profit per garment is often very low. To have any impact, therefore, a large number of garments would need to be stolen.
"A lot" can indeed mean large quantities here. The European Environment Agency estimates (see source) that between 4% and 9% of garments in the EU are destroyed rather than sold. These may be returns from online retailers or unsold stock. If the industry can absorb this loss, how effective would isolated cases of shoplifting really be?
Cost implications for customers and workers
Even if this were to result in significant losses, it is also questionable who would ultimately bear these losses. Costs would, after all, rise for all fast fashion chains if they were all affected. As a result, some of the costs would likely be passed on to consumers. Depending on the alternatives available to workers in the production facilities, the lower profit margins could also be passed on there. In a market, cost increases are usually borne by those who find it most difficult to switch to other consumer goods or other jobs.
Overall, this approach would therefore be of little effect.
More legitimate means
In my view, it would also be difficult to imagine legitimising theft in this case. Theft is illegal, and for good reason. Property rights are crucial from an economic perspective. If a society regards the taking of manufactured goods as legitimate: what incentive would a company even have left to produce?
Nor is there any acute emergency that would justify such an action (“The starving man steals the bread he needs but cannot afford.”). Ultimately, it is about the individual desire to “discipline” or “punish” a company.
There are legal ways to achieve such goals. On an individual level, people can choose not to buy fast fashion. At a political level, laws such as Canada’s “Modern Slavery Act” or the EU’s Supply Chain Act are steps that help to hold companies more accountable.
EEA report: Link to source