H&M Racist Sweatshirt Crisis Analysis môn Principle of Management | Trường Đại học Quốc tế, Đại học Quốc gia Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh

H&M Racist Sweatshirt Crisis Megan Schneider MEJO 531 Midterm BACKGROUND
H&M is a fashion retailer based out of Stockholm with thousands of stores across the
globe and also sells its merchandise online. H&M was accused of being racist when they
released a children’s sweatshirt that had the phrase “coolest monkey in the jungle” modeled by a
Black boy. This accusation threatened H&M’s reputation as well as customer loyalty. Key
publics in the case included the company itself, the family of the boy who modeled the
controversial sweatshirt, H&M customers, and H&M collaborators. During this crisis, H&M had
the goals of fixing their relationship with and gaining trust back from their customers and
collaborators, demonstrating to their publics that they are committed to diversity and inclusion,
and modifying their company’s structure to prevent similar incidents from happening again. The
company did this through issuing apologies, hiring more diversity and inclusion leaders, and
making policy changes to their organization. THE CRISIS
On January 7, 2018, H&M released a hoodie on its online store with the slogan “coolest
monkey in the jungle” that was modeled by a Black boy (Blanchard, 2019). The backlash began
on January 8 when people took to social media to criticize H&M for the sweatshirt, calling the
company racist since the slogan perpetuates a long-standing and offensive stereotype of referring
to Black people as monkeys. That same day, January 8, H&M released their initial apology. The
next day on January 9 H&M released a second, slightly more in-depth apology on Instagram.
Comments from the model’s mother telling people to “get over it” also surfaced that day, which
gained the company and situation more criticism. On January 15, the model’s parents went on
TV to try to diffuse the situation and said that they wished people could move on (Lubitz, 2018). THE OUTCOME
H&M faced consequences for the crisis other than just receiving criticism on social
media. Petitions to boycott H&M and demonstrations were held worldwide (Wang, 2019). NBA
star LeBron James and rapper Diddy responded with outrage and posted pictures on Instagram of
the boy with the sweatshirt photoshopped to say “King of the World” instead of “coolest monkey
in the jungle” (Olsen, 2018). The Weeknd, who had previously worked with H&M on clothing
collections, announced that he would no longer work with the company. G-Eazy also announced
via Instagram that he was canceling his yet to be launched global campaign with H&M. The
company also had to deal with damages to some of their locations. On January 13, several H&M
stores in South Africa were trashed by protestors (Lubitz, 2018). THE RESPONSE
In response to the crisis, H&M removed the sweatshirt from its stores and apologized on
its social media accounts, its website, and through statements to the media. H&M first responded
on January 8, the day the backlash began and the day after the hoodie was released. Their initial
statement was: “We sincerely apologize for this image. It has been removed from all online
channels and the product will not be for sale in the United States. We believe in diversity and
inclusion in all that we do and will be reviewing our internal routines.” The public apology was
featured at the top of their website (West, 2018).
On January 9, H&M apologized again via Instagram. The statement read: “We
understand that many people are upset about the image of the children’s hoodie. We, who work
at H&M, can only agree. We’re deeply sorry that the picture was taken, and we also regret the
actual print. Therefore, we’ve not only removed the image from our channels, but also the
garment from our product offering. It’s obvious that our routines haven’t been followed properly.
This is without any doubt. We’ll thoroughly investigate why this happened to prevent this type of
mistake from happening again” (Lubitz, 2018).
Other than their apologies and statements, H&M made policy changes within their
company as well. H&M hired their first-ever global leader for diversity and inclusiveness, hired
more diversity and inclusion experts, held more unconscious bias training workshops, and
required all designers to attend legal and ethical workshops. H&M also provided more
opportunities for clothing to get flagged during every stage, created more oversight and had more
people review items, and created channels for employees to express their concerns about any garment (Wang, 2019).
LESSON ONE: ISSUE THE APOLOGY IMMEDIATELY
The company needs to issue an apology immediately in order to ensure that they can have
as much control of the narrative as possible. Additionally, a company responding quickly shows
that they are paying attention, care what their publics think, and take the situation seriously.
While it is important to conduct a thorough review of what caused the problem in the first place,
it is essential to get the initial apology out there as soon as possible to ensure the public that the
matter is getting looked into and that the company is trying to resolve the situation in the best
way possible. Additional apologies can always be added later, as well as updates on the situation,
but the company needs to get as ahead of the backlash as they can so that the public can at least
know the position of the organization and can see that the problem is being taken seriously. The
organization’s objective needs to be to control the narrative as much as possible, and addressing
the situation quickly is an efficient way to do just that.
H&M was successful in issuing an immediate apology to the monkey sweatshirt crisis.
The hoodie was released online on January 7 and the backlash started January 8. H&M released
its first statement on the eighth. The statement included an apology, saying that the sweatshirt
was removed from its online store, and promised that the company believed in diversity and
inclusion and would be reviewing their internal routines (Lubitz, 2018). While H&M ultimately
made more statements and apologies that included more specific actions they were taking to
address the problem, the initial and immediate apology demonstrated to their publics that they
did take the issue seriously and promised that they would take action. Since H&M followed up
on their promises, their initial apology was a good way to get their company’s position on the
issue out there while they could look more into the situation and come up with a solution.
A case study that exemplifies why it is so important to respond immediately is Domino’s.
The company waited many days before releasing an apology, which allowed the narrative to get
out of their control. By the time the company apologized it was too late. Domino’s should have
issued an apology as soon as possible, especially since the apology they did issue fell flat among
their publics and did not show that the company took the problem very seriously. Since H&M
did the opposite and responded in a timely manner, they were able to be proactive and gain as
much control over the narrative as possible. Even though the company had a lot of work to do to
handle the situation, the initial apology communicates to the public that they are taking the issue
seriously and that there will be further action taken.
LESSON TWO: THE APOLOGY NEEDS TO BE FROM SOMEONE HIGH UP
Having someone in a high position in the company be the one to issue the apology is a
smart public relations strategy because it shows that the company is not taking the issue lightly
and it also demonstrates that the company is taking responsibility for the mistake. Additionally, it
puts a face on the apology which makes it more personal than a general statement from a faceless
and nameless figure. When a company says or does something that offends people, the goal of
the company needs to be to reacquire support from the public. The business needs to have a
strong statement in order to regain that trust; having an apology from a prominent figure in the
company is a major part of creating a good apology that the public accepts.
H&M did not have a high up figure issue their apology, which was one of the reasons
their statement did not seem genuine. H&M’s apology not only did not have someone high up
issue the apology, but the apology did not even come from any person at all. Instead, the
company decided to issue a basic statement from the whole company which fell flat among their
publics. H&M’s original statement included “we sincerely apologize for this image” as well as
“we believe in diversity and inclusion” (Lubitz, 2018). People on social media met these
statements critically, as there was no indication as to who “we” was referring to other than the
company as a whole, which seems impersonal and ingenuine. H&M should have had a high up
official give the apology in order to take responsibility, appear sincere, and gain back trust from their publics.
An example of a company that did a good job of having their apology come from
someone high up is Starbucks. Even though the incident the company was facing was not
necessarily the fault of the CEO, he took responsibility anyway. Because of this, the apology was
received by the public as more genuine and showed that the company actually cared about the
problem and wanted to fix it. To the public, the higher up the official, the more seriously the
company appears to take the issue, so having the CEO be the one to make the statement
demonstrates the company’s commitment to solving the problem.
While it is vital to have a leader of the company issue the apology, it is important to
remember that it is not everything needed for a successful statement. Both Lululemon and
Domino’s had apologies that came directly from the CEO’s of the companies but they both were
unsuccessful because the apologies did not seem genuine. Having a high up figure issue the
apology is important for making the statement seem more personal, but if the person does not
deliver it authentically, it defeats the purpose of having them be the ones issuing it in the first
place. In order to make sure the apology from the leader of the company seem genuine, they
must be sure to take responsibility for the mistake. Lululemon, Domino’s, and H&M did not
have successful apologies because they did not have a leader who took responsibility and gave a
sincere apology, and that led to the public not accepting their statements.
LESSON THREE: MESSAGES FROM THE COMPANY NEED TO BE CONSISTENT
The messages from the company and its affiliates following the incident need to be
consistent in order to give a unified message that accurately reflects the company and how it
wants to apologize. Inconsistent messaging from different people or areas of the company makes
it unclear to the public what the company actually believes and leads the public to view the
company’s apology as artificial. Especially in the case like H&M where the business issued an
apology representing the whole company, it is vital for the organization to have the goal of
providing uniform communication to the public on the issue to show their dedication to their
values and commitments promised in the apologies. Organizations, therefore, must plan ahead
and have policies in place to control the message the company sends in a crisis.
While the apologies H&M released on their website and social media were all consistent,
the opinions of the mother of the child who modeled the controversial sweatshirt did not align
with the message H&M was trying to send. The mother, Terry Mango, jumped on Facebook
when she heard her son’s picture was circulating the internet and wrote “Am the mum and this is
one of hundreds of outfits my son has modeled. Stop crying wolf all the time, unnecessary issue
here… get over it” (Wang, 2019). This comment added fuel to the fire and made the public even
angrier about the sweatshirt situation. People took to social media to criticize the mom’s
response, and the public did not seem to differentiate Mango’s opinion from that of H&M. This
comment delegitimized H&M’s statement as many people viewed Mango’s comment as
offensive and insensitive to the situation at hand.
Furthermore, Mango went on TV and said that people were making too much of the
situation and that she wished people could move on from the incident (Wang, 2019). Although
Mango technically did not work for H&M, the public did not care; her words were still reflective
and tied to the company. Her message did not make the situation better but were rather received
with criticism. The public felt that Mango was being insensitive and trying to defend racism, and,
therefore, it appeared to the public that H&M was trying to do the same even though the
company’s apologies stated the opposite. H&M should have made sure to control the comments
made by members of their company and its affiliates. Mango’s comments directly contradicted
how H&M wanted their response to be perceived in the crisis and ultimately made the situation
worse. This demonstrates how companies need to be prepared for all sorts of situations and must
have protocols in place when disaster inevitably strikes.
The Cleveland Clinic is an example of an organization that was prepared for a variety of
outcomes and had protocols in place to manage its staff’s response, and therefore, had control
over the message the public would be exposed to. The clinic provided its employees with
guidelines for what they could and could not say, and they had prepared statements for if the
procedure were to succeed or fail. These protocols ensured that the communication was
consistent and gave the exact, intentional, and uniform message that the organization wanted for
the situation. In order for companies to ensure that they will have consistent messaging in crisis
situations, they need to have plans in place and keep their staff informed of the specific
communication expectations in certain situations. Without these guidelines, a company is
vulnerable to one loose cannon ruining the message they are trying to send to the public.
LESSON FOUR: MAKE ACTUAL CHANGES TO SHOW COMMITMENT
The company that made the mistake should have the goal to make actual changes within
their business structure in order to show commitment to fixing the problem. Otherwise, the
company’s apology can seem performative. People expect actions, not just words. Preventative
measures need to be implemented to show the public that the company is taking the problem
seriously and wants to prevent a similar situation from happening again. These measures can
include hiring a director dedicated to preventing other problems, offering new employee
trainings, or other actions that show the company is taking the issue seriously and shows actual
commitment to preventing further situations. Whatever action the company decides, they need to
make sure the public can clearly see that the company is taking steps to prevent further issues.
H&M did a good job of taking action that showed the company was dedicated to making
changes to prevent similar issues from happening. They appointed their first-ever global leader
for diversity and inclusiveness, Annie Wu, who was a good and qualified candidate as she had
her own international experiences dealing with diversity and inclusiveness (Blanchard, 2019).
H&M also held more unconscious bias training workshops after the incident (Wang, 2019).
While these actions show dedication to promoting diversity and inclusion within their
company and their products, the most important change H&M made was changing their policies
for their designers. After the sweatshirt incident, the company created obligatory legal and
ethical workshops that all designers had to go through where they would learn about how
different designs and graphics can be interpreted in good and bad ways in different global
settings. The designers also had to learn about cultural and religious sensitivity, legal protections
around certain designs, and regional irony and jokes. Beyond the trainings, H&M also added
new opportunities to flag clothing pieces at every stage of the process as well as add notes about
sensitivities, such as where the product should and should not be sold. Flagged items are also
now discussed in meetings consisting of various departments. Additionally, the company added
channels such as email groups where anyone can submit a concern about an item. Lastly, H&M
increased the number of people who do the final round of quality checks on garments (Wang,
2019). These detailed policy changes for H&M’s process of creating and releasing clothing items
clearly demonstrates how the company took the sweatshirt incident seriously and put in policies
to prevent a similar situation from happening again, and was a good move on H&M’s part to
show their publics that they were committed to making actual changes.
An example of a case study that also demonstrates a company making actual changes to
demonstrate commitment is Starbucks. In this case, the company also had to deal with racism
within their business. Like H&M, Starbucks dedicated time to diversity and inclusion training as
well as created new policies to prevent similar situations from happening. Starbucks showed they
were committed to the issue in how they required all staff at all locations to undergo this training
and even shut down all of its stores for half a day. This kind of action demonstrates to the public
that the company takes the issue seriously and is willing to put in the work to prevent another
similar incident from happening. While both of these companies could have easily issued an
apology and moved on, they both decided to commit more time, energy, and money into actually
addressing the problem within the company. This commitment demonstrates to the public that
the company actually cares about the problem and genuinely wants to fix the mistake and prevent another situation. Bibliography
Blanchard, T. (2019, February 8). Courting controversy: from H&M’s ‘coolest monkey’ to
Gucci’s blackface jumper. The Guardian .
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2019/feb/08/courting-controversy-from-hms-coole
st-monkey-to-guccis-blackface-jumper
Lubitz, R. (2018, January 16). H&M’s hoodie controversy: From initial backlash to destroyed
stores and everything in between. Mic .
https://www.mic.com/articles/187418/handms-hoodie-controversy-from-initial-backlash-t
o-destroyed-stores-and-everything-in-between
Olsen, J. (2018, January 17). After 'monkey hoodie' scandal, H&M hires diversity leader. USA Today.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/retail/2018/01/17/after-monkey-hoodie-scandal-
h-m-hires-diversity-leader/1039748001/
Wang, C. (2019, July 11). The Real Story Behind H&M’s Racist Monkey Sweatshirt. Refinery29.
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/07/237347/h-m-racist-hoodie-controversy-divers ity-problem
West, S. (2018, January 19). H&M faced backlash over its ‘monkey’ sweatshirt ad. It isn’t the
company’s only controversy. The Washington Post .
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/01/19/hm-faced-
backlash-over-its-monkey-sweatshirt-ad-it-isnt-the-companys-only-controversy/