Live data from Hacker News

EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

environment.ec.europa.eu

221–230 of 894 posts

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#221
Hopefully, what this should motivate is the emphasis on products which can be _disassembled_, taken apart, other than through destruction.

It may also become less costly to take products with flaws and fix them up: Right now, it's not profitable; but if one can't just chuck them away, then the cost-benefit analysis changes.

Less throw-away fashion hopefully.

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#223

It’s shocking to see this legislated. As if companies are just out here wantonly destroying otherwise valuable goods that could have been easily sold at a profit instead. I guarantee this problem is far more complex and troublesome than the bureaucrats would ever understand, much less believe, yet they have no problem piling on yet another needless regulatory burden.

Yeah, it is shocking. And that's why it needed to be legislated. Companies prove time and time again that they will take the easiest route to minimise losses and maximise profits, even if that means destroying the environment or wasting perfectly good merchandise to do so.

They're not destroying clothing because it's inherently unsellable, or hazardous, or damaged beyond repair. They destroy it because it's easier to dump excess stuff than it is to set up responsible channels to get rid of it.

Many "high fashion" shithouses intentionally destroy excess stock so that their precious branded status symbols can't get into the hands of the filthy proles, which would dilute their brand recognition.

These "regulatory burdens", as you call them, are the only thing holding back companies from further messing up the planet and I welcome them with open arms.

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#224

In my experience in other physical goods industries (not textiles specifically) there is a big difference between products that are good but aren’t ever sold for some reason and products that are deemed not sellable for some reason. For example, if a custom returns a product that was opened but they claim was never used (worn in this case) you can’t sell it to someone else as a new item. With physical products these…

> What if a batch of products is determined to have some QA problems?

If you had bothered to read TFA, you'd have understood that the rules only apply to products that have fully passed QA, were being kept as stock but ended up not selling. They don't apply to experimental batches, to defective or damaged items, etc...

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that's what you agreed to, that's why they donated it to you.

Then that's not a donation, just some shenanigans to bypass the law, which regulators presumably understands could happen.

Welcome to Planet Earth in 2026 :)

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#226
post #206

Compared to the USA, is a contributing factor because things can't be put on discount sale in the EU? In american many things are always on a discount, and there are so many channels through which this discounted merchandise is funneled. Which has to be a major way retails manage excess stock. A lot of people don't realize that european retailers are legally disallowed from selling at a discount. Edit to clarify: thi…

To clarify, this is a consumer protection law which is set in all EEA countries. Discounts are regulated to prevent stores from tricking their customers into thinking they are getting a product at a lower then usual price. You can only claim a product is on discount if the price has been lowered from a previous price less then x-days ago (I think 2 weeks is not uncommon), after which this discount becomes the new price.

As a European immigrant to the USA, it infuriates me to no end that American stores are allowed to use the words “price” and “discount” interchangeably. When I get things “on a discount” I expect to be paying lower then usual price.

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laissez faire. They’re making businesses absorb the externalities, as they should.

Don't be surprised if products are sent abroad for destr^Wrecycling. No I am not joking, some german company hid an airtag in a old computer that went to recycling. It ended up somewhere in Thailand, being not very environmentally friendly taken care of.

Remember when UK council recycling bags were found in rubbish dumps in the Myanmar jungle?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7070709/Plastic-pac...

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#228
post #211

I'm reading the comments and I get confused. I kinda think this is a good idea and it is not like the government is purely making it a 3rd party problem only. This might make production more complicated for a while, but nowadays it is much easier to predict demand and produce quicker in smaller batches. In the 90s you might need change a whole factory setting for every single piece of fabric but nowadays it is that m…

>Here, we don't have winter, fall or anything anymore. It's like this in a lot of places now. We're seeing climate change in the interval of a generation. It's absolutely scary. > The acid rain from the 90s destroyed most of green on adjacent cities and when it is hot it gets in unbearably hot and when it is cold it gets stupidly cold. What country do you live in if you don't mind telling us?

> It's like this in a lot of places now. We're seeing climate change in the interval of a generation. It's absolutely scary.

I have lived in the same place my whole life. The weather and seasons are effectively the same, from the day i was born until now. Both observationally and by way of looking at average daily temperatures.

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#229

I'm reading the comments and I get confused. I kinda think this is a good idea and it is not like the government is purely making it a 3rd party problem only. This might make production more complicated for a while, but nowadays it is much easier to predict demand and produce quicker in smaller batches. In the 90s you might need change a whole factory setting for every single piece of fabric but nowadays it is that m…

I think some people here on Hacker News are semi-deluded free market fundamentalists who believe they're going to be future billionaires, so they naturally gravitate towards protecting the rights of big business to do whatever it wants, even if it hurts people and the planet.

The only people who think that destroying useful items is a good idea are those who would stand to lose money from it; either by having to pay a tiny fraction of their massive annual revenue for responsible recycling services, or by having their brand's reputation diluted by having their wares sold or (even worse) donated to the needy.

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#230

I'm reading the comments and I get confused. I kinda think this is a good idea and it is not like the government is purely making it a 3rd party problem only. This might make production more complicated for a while, but nowadays it is much easier to predict demand and produce quicker in smaller batches. In the 90s you might need change a whole factory setting for every single piece of fabric but nowadays it is that m…

Apparel firms exist not to clothe people as common sense would suggest but to make a profit, and this practice of erring on the side of overproduction is more profitable than under production. The perfect solution would be to produce exactly the number of goods they will sell, but forecasts aren't perfect so they overproduce. Firms are already incentivised by profit to not waste, so this adds another incentive and removes the pollution externality they have been enjoying. So now either they err closer to under-production and risk missing out on sales or secondary market supply of their goods increases leading to possible brand dilution. So in the end the value of these companies ends up lower than before, less pollution, and apparel is cheaper. I'd like to know more about the equity and carbon effects of the process they will need to now follow. So they trade destruction with shipping a crate to Africa. What is the difference? Firms will be less profitable, manufacturing is reduced, who is impacted by that?
Post reply on HN