EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application • Hacker News Board

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#131

Post by eastbound » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 5:17 PM UTC

dgellow wrote: post #46

graemep wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree we should, but that does not mean that a particular regulation is the right way to do it. Its very hard to close loopholes and exploitation of exemptions.

1. Come up with a regulation idea 2. do a bunch of studies to validate it 3. go through a pretty complicated, comprehensive, pretty long review process to debate and make it work within the existing regulatory system 4. eventually implement it 5. measure its impact 6. adapt or revoke according to the results We are at the 4th step. Why would you assume your concerns haven’t been already taken in account in all the pr…

[flagged]

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#132

Post by Stromgren » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 5:18 PM UTC

hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #29

Stromgren wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dad worked at a logistics facility, the amount of perfume he took home was ridiculous - and you’d think that something like perfume would never go stale. It does from a brand perspective and they do everything they can to have it destroyed so it doesn’t end up being sold to prices that would hurt the perceptive value. Obviously he wasn’t allowed to take it either.

This isn't really surprising in a low margin industry. If you are making a 2% margin on the average perfume bottle, and then you liquidate it at -3% because it's cheaper than destroying it, you can accidentally end up anchoring customer perceptions on a price with like a -1% margin which actually will destroy the business over time. High margin industries get more complicated to model, of course.

For sure high end perfumes are high margin products. Can’t be a lot of cost in producing a $100 perfume.

But I also feel like it’s a bit besides the point. Seeing pallet after pallet of perfumes getting destroyed every month should be an indication that something is not right.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#133

Post by embedding-shape » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 5:19 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #130

embedding-shape wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot more information about it here: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy/e... , and the full (current) text being here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A... As far as I can tell (although I'm no lawyer, sorry Nike), the point is to reduce waste and to increase recycled content in use. With these two main objectives, what Nike is doing seem to be fitting with…

What is considered recycling? Is convert the clothing into fuel pellets considered recycling? What about thermal decomposition for feedstocks for chemical manufacture (and what if 75% of the mass isn't useful for that and is instead burned in turbines for cogeneration)? Down-cycling is a thing. Even aluminum and steel get down-cycled. I have no sympathy for recycling fetishism.

From previously linked text:

> The concept of destruction as outlined in this Regulation should cover the last three activities on the waste hierarchy, namely recycling, other recovery and disposal. Preparation for reuse, including refurbishment and remanufacturing, should not be considered destruction. Preventing destruction will reduce the environmental impact of those products by reducing the generation of waste and by disincentivising overproduction.

Basically, does it end up as waste or does it end up being repurposed in some good way? If the former, we should find a way of getting rid of it, if it's the latter, it's A-OK!

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#134

Post by Wicher » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 5:20 PM UTC

LaundroMat wrote: post #123

bananamogul wrote: post #119

"Companies may only destroy unsold clothes and shoes in limited cases, such as when items are unsafe or damaged, counterfeit or infringing intellectual property rights, or are rejected by charities or donation schemes." Nike's unsold, defective, or returned shoes are ground up to make carpet padding. They're processed by the truckload in a large grinding machine. It seems that under these rules, this would be illegal…

Isn't that recycling instead of destroying?

Turning shoes into carpet padding is probably "downcycling". I think recycling would mean most of the shoe would be used for new shoes or something of similar complexity, retaining the grade and value of the input materials.

Downcycling is when you reuse something for a less refined purpose. For instance you can use contaminated plastics (im the sense of somewhat mixed types, bits and bobs of labels etc) to make humble park benches, but you won't be then reusing that low grade park bench plastic to make the Hubble space telescope with.

Still, downcycling into carpet is better than dumping the shoes on a coral atoll of course. Yet it's a step below recycling.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#135

Post by khurs » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 5:21 PM UTC

comrade1234 wrote: post #32

xnx wrote: post #8

Is this a problem in the EU? I often think in terms of home remodels that a family might do at least once. Those can easily fill a dumpster with tons of garbage. That's much more waste than a family could ever generate directly or indirectly in clothing.

I lived in a small building along with a French family with 5 children. The amount of trash they had every week was incredible. We had our small trash bag and theirs would be a heap of bags chest high. I sometimes wondered if he was throwing out trash from his business too. While living there the system changed from paying for a disposal service to pre-buying special bags that cost around 2.50chf per 35L bag. The Fre…

You didn't say where you live, and what kind of waste.

Is your separated into general/food/plastic/cardboard? As often it's the plastic bin that overflow if families are not cooking from ingredients but buying ready made food.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#136

Post by jandrewrogers » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 5:22 PM UTC

IneffablePigeon wrote: post #97

s1artibartfast wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have to deal with less sales and or storing excess inventory. Let's say you have some bruised bananas. You either have to keep them on the shelf till they rot (less space for sellable product) or donate them and then people won't buy as many bananas, so you need to raise the price.

People eating donated bananas are not buying bananas if there are none available for free. They are just not eating bananas.

Unfortunately, there is an issue with food pantries where people who are not in need use them because free food. People can be shameless. It is a minority but still too common and doesn't come with the stigma it deserves in some places. In Seattle, I've even heard a few anecdotes of people trying to resell food from the food pantries.

This behavior does impact prices in the normal market at the margin, particularly if it becomes normalized.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#137

Post by outime » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 5:29 PM UTC

radu_floricica wrote: post #129

> To prevent misuse, businesses relying on these exemptions must provide proof (e.g. documents or test results) and publish annual reports on what they have discarded. I wonder if anybody is keeping track of everything a mid size business needs to take care of. Each particular report probably sounds like a reasonable request, but by now they're probably well into hundreds, and they're all outside the actual scope of…

The "regulation kills businesses" saying is often (not always) exactly right.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#138

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 5:31 PM UTC

binaryturtle wrote: post #83

watermelon0 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to only produce 500 items, instead of producing 1k, and throwing half of it away?

Many years ago I worked in the printing industry. F.ex. a client wants 100 products of something (e.g. posters or flyers), usually it was more cost effective to produce a 1000 (or more) and then throw away 900 the client didn't need. Obviously a huge waste of material.

For printers, the cost is pretty much all in the setup. Printing 1000 copies costs about the same as printing 20.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#139

Post by mpyne » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 5:33 PM UTC

4ndrewl wrote: post #76

nieksand wrote: post #36

It seems like this policy would lead to shortages in less common sizes of clothing.

The invisible hand of the market will rectify this of course. Nothing to see here.

The invisible hand of the market has been handcuffed a bit here though. Though I imagine this will simply show up as higher cost rather than blanket inavailability.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#140

Post by flowerbreeze » Sat, Jul 18, 2026, 5:34 PM UTC

palata wrote: post #101

flowerbreeze wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems plausible. Less common sizes have a lower chance of being sold out, so if they can no longer be destroyed at the end and need to be further managed at lower quantities, it can become more cost effective to simply not make them. Whether it is true or not, I don't know.

Hmm... say you estimate that you will sell 1000 items of "normal size", you stock 1000 items, and hope that you sell all of them. You end up selling 900, you have a remaining 10%. No say you estimate that you will sell 10 items of "less common size", you stock 10 items, and hope that you sell all of them. You end up selling 9, you have a remaining 10%. How does that make a difference?

It's more like if you find one mushroom in the forest, it doesn't make sense to bring it home, get the knife, clean it, get the pan, oil the pan, fry the mushroom, eat it, clean the knife, clean the pan, put things away. It's not worth the effort for just one mushroom. If there are many, a lot of these actions only need to be taken once.