Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

environment.ec.europa.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 322 posts

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

#151

Post by altairprime »

skybrian wrote: post #148

It sounds like charities will be getting a lot of unsalable clothing to go through. Maybe they could charge businesses for taking it? It seems rather similar to what Ross Clothing does.

The EU is definitely studying the donations / tax-credit economy across its states; I expect that working group will be paying very close attention to donation outcomes union-wide in the coming months.

Tax incentives for donations to social economy entities: Models, trends, and challenges (2025) https://social-economy-gateway.ec.europa.eu/document/downloa...

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

#152

Post by [deleted] »

dinfinity wrote: post #149
outime wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is it? What is the proof for that? I think we've seen time and time again that self-regulation of the industry doesn't work and that businesses will gladly fuck over society if they can get away with it and make more money. Usually that behavior is even defended with saying "Well, it's not their responsibility to solve society's issues. They are there to make money." Barring nationalization of an industry, heavy regu…

[deleted]

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

#153

Post by UltraSane »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #85
UltraSane wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how does NOT destroying edible food make food more expensive?

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.

Supermarkets and stores throwing away edible food is pure waste and fundamentally immoral when people are going hungry.

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

#154

Post by altairprime »

embedding-shape wrote: post #133
pfdietz wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

To clarify without using the word ‘waste’ into two simple bullets:

1. Destruction is conversion of any usable product X to any non-X form (even if the new form is usable).

2. Destruction is prohibited (for large businesses, right now).

Usable is not perfectly defined and will be a judgment call, but one can construct a common sense set of ‘what is unusable?’ definitions that an inspector or judge would accept — so long as sellers have not explicitly caused such outcomes:

- Product lacks structural integrity (a loose thread doesn’t count, a missing sleeve does count)

- Product is contaminated (tried on and didn’t fit doesn’t count, motor oil stains does count)

- Product is unsafe (tried on and didn’t fit doesn’t count, underwear returned with safety liner removed may count, product has been worn for more than try-on period may count)

Note that, for example, the EU is likely to say ‘launder it first, then donate it’ for products that are worn and returned but can be safely donated after laundering; so they are specifically aware of some of the loopholes that corps will aim for first.

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

#155

Post by athrowaway3z »

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…

I'm not sure your complaint works in this case.

You only write a report if you want the exemption.

The hypothetical business you're imaging shouldn't be looking for an exemption.

The law's effect on small business is conceptually not too different from eg laws against dumping toxic sludge.

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

#156

Post by embedding-shape »

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…

> but not for a small organization doing... something else

But for you to do your "small organization", shouldn't you be required to have to consider the environment around you?

A bar of course doesn't want to care about the noise the patrons do on the terrace for example, but because we live in the world with other people, they do have to care about this, even if it's "something else" than what they want to do.

Or data centers as another (maybe more contemporary) example, where sometimes they have things that needs to be disposed of in a certain way. Yes, the data center operators aren't in the business of "toxic waste management", but if you want to run a data center, you need to figure out how to deal with the byproducts.

I don't think clothing companies should somehow be magically excepted from having to care about others.

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

#157

Post by kelvinjps10 »

altairprime wrote: post #127
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…

Yes, with the exception of ‘unsafe’ where a shoe is used and/or non-cosmetically defective. The law reduces wasted production inputs — materials, energy, and labor — as well as production outputs — wearable shoes, here. This directly regulates a practice by brands where they destroy wearable clothing rather than see their latest branded fashion worn by people who bought it at a discount or received it for free. This…

Wouldn't they have to make discounts or sell it therefore lowering the price.

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

#158

Post by zb3 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #85
UltraSane wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how does NOT destroying edible food make food more expensive?

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.

Or.. lower the price?

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

#159

Post by [deleted] »

Y-bar wrote: post #116
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.

One of my clients (a clothing brand) burns something in the range of 60-100 tonnes of clothes at the end of each season (4/year) here in the EU. They do it because it is easier and cheaper than to optimise the logistics chain. It is also cheaper than to recycle it. And they refuse to discount it or sell to secondary outlets to ”avoid brand dilution”.

[deleted]

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

#160

Post by rzwitserloot »

loeg wrote: post #117
rzwitserloot wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a somewhat blunt instrument used to internalize some externalities: Making a product and then destroying it is wasteful, and the market will fix all internalized costs of that waste, but some of those costs are externalized. Having society pay somewhat for producing clothes that are then worn, that's one thing. Having society pay for pointless waste is another. What you've said is: Looking only at the internaliz…

You could internalize the cost of waste more generically by charging appropriately for landfill use and letting producers decide how much it's worth avoiding waste. Instead of just banning a particular waste stream by a particular industry, with distortive consequences.

Yes, and that sounds like a better plan, but evidently that requires more political capital than is available.
Post reply on HN