Amazon destroying millions of items of unsold stock in one of its UK warehouses

'In good condition' and appearing to still be in original shrink-wrap isn't good enough to sell as new to a consumer though.

You can try to offload it via a box of junk auction, and they do do that, but I'm not sure how tractable it is at scale.

> Germany's largest online retailer also offers external providers who use the “Dispatch by Amazon” logistics service the opportunity to dispose of unsold inventory.

This implies those providers can dispose of the unsold inventory how they see fit, possibly by selling it wholesale or for parts, etc. This doesn't seem like a huge crime.

The report would be a lot more useful if there were some context for this data. How many items do comparable places like Wal Mart warehouses destroy each week? What's the reason for these items being marked for destruction? What percentage of the products are these; how many items go through the warehouse per week that are not destroyed?

I expect these are products returned with defects, that have been issued recalls, that were damaged during shipping, that expired, and all the other streams that aren't the 'happy path' of New product from manufacturer -> Amazon warehouse -> End user for lifetime of product. (Edit: or returned with no defects other than a lack of assured quality and possibly damaged packaging, but still not economically viable to ship back, verify, repackage, and relist as new and unused).

How much money, time, and energy would it take to ship them back to manufacturers where expert technicians could refurbish them to like-new condition if they're broken and fixable, to mark them down and sell them as blemished if they're cosmetically unacceptable but still functional, or to otherwise rescue them from destruction? As an industrial controls engineer in the manufacturing sector, I expect it's a lot more than just discarding it and fabricating a new one from raw materials on an automated production line.

I try to make my lines as flexible as possible, but there's an economy of scale problem that won't be put back into Pandora's box by shaming people with articles containing big numbers. Economics are immune to guilt, you have to find another way to penalize the behaviors you dislike or incentivize the behaviors you want. The reality is that it's really cheap and fast to build new things with low-touch mass production, making them easily diagnosed and repaired is less efficient, and the math says that it's cheaper to make 98% of your parts cheaply and write of 2% to waste than it is to spend 10% more per unit and have zero waste. I expect that the solution has to come either from technology that makes repair, self-diagnosis, packaging, and/or shipping cheaper, or from regulation that makes the 2% write off more expensive than 2%. Regardless of the solution, moralizing is ineffective.

This is what people should really be angry about, not the 'peeing in bottles' working conditions.

This directly results in wasted labour, wasted resources, wasted money, and extra environmental damage. And all because amazon doesn't have any serious competition to force them not to waste those resources.