13 comments

  • dash222 minutes ago
    I don’t understand why they would ban this rather than charge for it. It seems very likely that destroying unsold clothes is sometimes the socially efficient thing to do, even after taking into account the environmental externalities.
    • bulder13 minutes ago
      Destroying unsold clothes is <i>financially</i> the most efficient thing to do. It remains unclear to me how taking actions to maintain higher markups on products would be <i>socially</i> efficient in any way. Companies of course can keep doing it, they just will face financial and legislative repercussions for it.
    • cromka17 minutes ago
      Because it promotes recycling instead of being another tax.
    • roysting10 minutes ago
      That was my initial thought too; just make it a non-deductible charge, ideally, payable from executive compensation.<p>Or they could also just levy higher taxes&#x2F;fees on synthetic fibers and clothing that cannot be repaired (there are several reasons), and at the same time support the industry for natural, truly biodegradable fibers and their research?<p>This seems like more ivory tower navel gazing.<p>And that doesn’t even touch on all the jurisdictional and financial shenanigans that immediately come to my mind how you can circumvent that.<p>Government legislatures really should have red team groups that have to be included in legislative processes with the objective of punching holes into legislation.
  • nieksand42 minutes ago
    It seems like this policy would lead to shortages in less common sizes of clothing.
    • 4ndrewl9 minutes ago
      The invisible hand of the market will rectify this of course. Nothing to see here.
    • josephcsible25 minutes ago
      How do you figure?
      • jandrewrogers0 minutes ago
        Currently, unpopular sizes are over-produced because they are subsidized by popular sizes. If the unpopular sizes have to be paid for, the logistics and production processes would push producers to under-produce popular sizes.<p>A key insight is that what constitutes an &quot;unpopular size&quot; is a very local phenomenon. Every point of retail sells a different, semi-predictable distribution of sizes. It is much cheaper to ship sizes no one will buy than to manage the logistics of exactly matching local demand for a specific distribution of sizes.<p>I asked the same question to someone who works in this business and got an eye-opening detailed explanation that made it obvious in hindsight why things the work the way the do. The difference in product cost and logistics infrastructure was not small.
      • flowerbreeze16 minutes ago
        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&#x27;t know.
      • cm20125 minutes ago
        Normally you can overproduce clothing and make three of every size or something, knowing that it only costs a couple bucks to make another shirt, for instance. And you can throw out if you make too many. If it&#x27;s illegal to throw it out, maybe that raises the price from $2 to $4 because now you have to pay for storage for a long time. So you&#x27;ll buy less inventory at the start, which usually means cutting less common sizes first
      • toast017 minutes ago
        If your minimum run is 1000 of a size, and you can only really sell 500 because it&#x27;s an uncommon size, and you would prefer to sell at full price or not at all, seems like making that size no longer fits your plans.
        • thewebguyd1 minute ago
          &gt; prefer to sell at full price or not at all<p>That really only applies to luxury designer brands where selling at a discount can dilute the brand prestige, is Gucci, Versace, etc. really destroying unsold inventory at large volumes vs. standard retailers?
        • watermelon09 minutes ago
          Wouldn&#x27;t it be cheaper to only produce 500 items, instead of producing 1k, and throwing half of it away?
          • SpicyLemonZest6 minutes ago
            1k in this example would be the minimum needed to make it worth the static cost of setting up and tearing down the production run.
      • s1artibartfast12 minutes ago
        It&#x27;s really different depending on if the manufacturer has Brand reputation or is just a replaceable good. For no name jeans, they probably just keep making them and donate the leftovers.<p>For a high-end designer dress, may be better to not manufacture large or small sizes that don&#x27;t sell frequently.
  • Saline95151 hour ago
    It looks like a great opportunity for mafia networks to get paid by clothing brands in order to dispose of the stocks.
  • xnx1 hour ago
    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&#x27;s much more waste than a family could ever generate directly or indirectly in clothing.
    • maccard16 minutes ago
      I did a remodel last year. I filled 2 largeskips by the end of it. This is the first large job this house has had in 10 years, and it’s a 130 year old house.<p>The cafe at the bottom of my street has roughly that amount of waste collected every 2 weeks - they fill their commercial trash bin every 2 days. I don’t know how much of that is waste vs old food but they generate orders of magnitude more waste than I do even when I’m making a huge mess.
    • embedding-shape1 hour ago
      &gt; I often think in terms of home remodels that a family might do at least once<p>Very interesting point of view, as someone who never done a home remodel, it surely brought a new perspective for me.<p>&gt; That&#x27;s much more waste than a family could ever generate directly or indirectly in clothing.<p>I&#x27;m not sure, if you have two kids who are into trendy clothing and you&#x27;re able to let them make choices around clothing, then I can imagine that there is quite high turnover on those things.<p>Besides, the proposed rules seems to try to address waste generated by businesses rather than individuals or families. I guess currently they throw outdated clothing in order to make space for the new clothing lines?
    • pcdevils1 hour ago
      It&#x27;s companies dumping unsold ranges of clothes as new ranges come in. Not people.
    • Stromgren1 hour ago
      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.
      • hiAndrewQuinn58 minutes ago
        This isn&#x27;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&#x27;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.<p>High margin industries get more complicated to model, of course.
        • phoronixrly56 minutes ago
          Perfume? Low-margin? Getting hits ranging between 50% and 85% depending on how luxury the brand is considered to be...
    • comrade123453 minutes ago
      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.<p>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 French family moved back to France within a couple of months.
      • microtonal20 minutes ago
        Did they still have children wearing diapers? If so, that&#x27;s your answer.
      • dash224 minutes ago
        I think the children alone are enough of an explanation…
    • dgellow38 minutes ago
      The keyword is _unsold_. If you bought clothes, they aren’t unsold
    • dathinab32 minutes ago
      it&#x27;s a pretty big _international_ problem<p>basically<p>- company cheap mass produces clothes&#x2F;shoes<p>- new session (1&#x2F;4 year) comes in (at beast)&#x2F;&#x2F; it&#x27;s fast fashion and there is a new trend (at worst)<p>- the &quot;old&quot; clothes are sold with rabatt but either before the session end or limited to clothes already shipped to stores<p>- this leaves a ton of clothes not shipped to physical shops and not sold in time<p>- selling them very strongly discounted means they compete with the new batch of different clothes, not discounting them means they might block up store space (physical store) or storage space (online shop, storage cost at scale shouldn&#x27;t be underestimated, especially if some clothes just don&#x27;t sell)<p>- so companies just destroy the unsold clothes _and write the production cost off as loss_. Turns out destroying + write off is more profitable then gifting or discounting... :(<p>- this is especially true for brand-clothes. They are often produced for a fraction of sales price and don&#x27;t want to see their stuff being sold for more then a small discount. For some of this brand clothes their values outright lies more in &quot;you needed to pay a bunch for it&quot; then it &quot;being high quality&quot; (beyond a certain baseline of quality).<p>now the relevant question: Will this prevent companies from finding loopholes to still trash their clothes, especially brand clothes?<p>Yes it won&#x27;t prevent it. But it increases the cost&#x2F;complexity of it so it will likely reduce it by quite a bit. But some big next &quot;&lt;brand still dumps clothes through loophole&gt;&quot; scandal is basically just a question of time.<p>Still overall it looks like it will be beneficial from a wast, environment and climate POV while harming (way too) fast fashion which is good as fast fashion is harmful for all the previous points, laborer treatment, cloth quality and some others.
    • amarant46 minutes ago
      Is fast fashion not a thing in the US? I was under the impression it was, but perhaps I was wrong...
      • dgellow39 minutes ago
        It definitely is, according to my experience traveling to NYC
    • ascorbic1 hour ago
      This is about businesses, not families.
    • anonzzzies51 minutes ago
      I reuse everything from remodels. Seems a shame to throw out always. And other skips are getting bought by others to use in their building projects.
    • UltraSane28 minutes ago
      This law doesn&#x27;t apply to individual consumers, only manufactures and retail stores.
  • tancop1 hour ago
    some places already do this for food where anything thats after sell by date but still safe to eat has to be donated to a food bank.<p>i think it should be expanded to cover more categories than food and clothes when reuse and recycling infra grows to take the demand. its not just good for the environment it also prevents producers from restricting supply to keep their profits high.<p>the ultimate goal is make it illegal to destroy or intentionally damage <i>anything</i> usable before it reaches consumers. that would create a new ecosystem of discount stores and giveaway centers, and save everyone a ton of money.
    • jandrewrogers35 minutes ago
      Who pays for the logistics cost of moving and stocking these products in discount stores and giveaway centers? That is a large percentage of the total cost of production and the reason disposal is cheaper.<p>If those costs are paid for by taxpayers then the consumers are in effect involuntarily buying products they would not have otherwise bought, just with more steps. We already see this with agricultural subsidies.<p>If those costs are charged back to the producer then it becomes economically optimal to under-produce, which will cause prices to rise and risk shortages but eliminate waste. One can make the argument that higher prices for basic goods to reduce waste is a social good but it also impoverishes consumers.<p>All of these scenarios have happened empirically countless times. That almost every producer over-produces to some extent at no profit to themselves when allowed has strong &quot;Chesterton&#x27;s Fence&quot; characteristics.
      • rzwitserloot18 minutes ago
        It&#x27;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&#x27;s one thing. Having society pay for pointless waste is another.<p>What you&#x27;ve said is: <i>Looking only at the internalized costs</i>, pointless-wasting a percentage of clothes costs X but reduces clothes cost in the store by Y, with Y being larger than X.<p>Okay. Irrelevant - that math doesn&#x27;t include externalized costs. It may well be that this is a stupid idea, but &quot;market decided destroying some clothes was more efficient&quot; doesn&#x27;t prove anything unless you can show that the size of the externalized costs to this process are 0 or close enough to 0 to have no meaningful relevance.
        • SpicyLemonZest11 minutes ago
          Again, the waste is not pointless, it&#x27;s part of an inventory management strategy to ensure adequate supply. If your local grocery store established a policy that they&#x27;ll never buy more meat than they&#x27;re sure they can sell before the expiration date, they&#x27;d routinely run out.
          • jyounker2 minutes ago
            Do you have proof of that assertion?
      • herbst17 minutes ago
        &gt; Who pays for the logistics cost of moving and stocking these products in discount stores and giveaway centers?<p>All the examples I know of (Austria, Switzerland) are social clubs&#x2F;associations (whatever that is called) and DO NOT depend on tax payer money.
    • s1artibartfast20 minutes ago
      It may be an incentive to produce less and restrict options available. It really depends on how much harm it does to the company to donate or mark down their product.
  • cassianoleal1 hour ago
    How long until they start shipping those abroad where they will become toxic bonfires?
    • mtrovo43 minutes ago
      You&#x27;re half joking but this actually happens already. As you can imagine there&#x27;s a lot of backlash on dumping good clothes on Europe itself so they export them in bad conditions just to have it burned out of sight.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;changingmarkets.org&#x2F;report&#x2F;trashion-the-stealth-export-of-waste-plastic-clothes-to-kenya&#x2F;?hl=en-GB" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;changingmarkets.org&#x2F;report&#x2F;trashion-the-stealth-expo...</a><p>And it&#x27;s not just old clothes being discarded, another related study showed that around 30% of clothes returned from online stores are not even looked over to see if they&#x27;re worth selling again and are discarded straight away.
    • Hackbraten1 hour ago
      That loophole has become very difficult:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;environment.ec.europa.eu&#x2F;topics&#x2F;waste-and-recycling&#x2F;waste-shipments&#x2F;plastic-waste-shipments_en" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;environment.ec.europa.eu&#x2F;topics&#x2F;waste-and-recycling&#x2F;...</a>
      • boredhedgehog42 minutes ago
        But when does a product become waste? When the owner says it is.
    • wiz21c1 hour ago
      At least they&#x27;re trying.
    • wolvoleo1 hour ago
      That can be penalised too.<p>We really have to get away from the idea that curtailing intentional industrial waste production is futile. Perhaps in American style capitalism it is because the system is rigged and the biggest money bag always wins. But we don&#x27;t want this here at all.<p>We have to get forward as humanity and treat our planet with respect. Otherwise we won&#x27;t have one worth living on. Making money isn&#x27;t the only thing that counts.
      • graemep1 hour ago
        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.
        • ChrisLTD1 hour ago
          You have to start somewhere, no? We have laws against stealing and murder and folks don’t usually go around saying they should be removed from the books because some people still steal and commit murder.
          • graemep1 hour ago
            Yes, but those laws are pretty effective. They do deter murderers and thieves, and take them out of society so they cannot repeat their offences.<p>Ill thought out regulations can make things worse - I am convinced this is the case for the UK&#x27;s Online Safety Act, for example. That (and the proposed ban on social media for under 16s) is also promoted on &quot;we must do something&quot; grounds.<p>I am very much in favour of some proposed changes under the law - e.g. improving repairability and reusability of some product categories.<p>I have doubts that some discouragement of destruction of new products fixes the big underlying problem with clothing: the production of cheap junk not designed to last. Under these regulations (at least as summarised in the article), they offer it to charity, charity rejects it, then they are free to destroy it.
        • dgellow33 minutes ago
          1. Come up with a regulation idea<p>2. do a bunch of studies to validate it<p>3. go through a pretty complicated, comprehensive, pretty long review process to debate and make it work within the existing regulatory system<p>4. eventually implement it<p>5. measure its impact<p>6. adapt or revoke according to the results<p>We are at the 4th step. Why would you assume your concerns haven’t been already taken in account in all the previous steps? It’s all public, you can look for the reasoning and justification
        • sorokod1 hour ago
          Naming and shaming is a reasonable first step.
        • amelius1 hour ago
          We need judges that don&#x27;t just look at the letter of the law. We can already use computers for that.
      • thesmtsolver238 minutes ago
        Wasn’t it the US that caught European companies in the emissions scandal<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Volkswagen_emissions_scandal" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Volkswagen_emissions_scandal</a>
  • amazingamazing1 hour ago
    Why would this ever happen? Is it cheaper to destroy than sell at discount?
    • ascorbic1 hour ago
      Yes, clothing companies and stores will very commonly destroy clothes if they determine that selling at a discount would undermine the brand value. They do things like cutting holes in the soles of shoes before discarding them.
      • thrance1 hour ago
        &gt; The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.<p>John Steinbeck, <i>The Grapes of Wrath</i>
    • embedding-shape1 hour ago
      Some stuff you basically have to give away for people to buy, some stuff just isn&#x27;t so attractive to most people. With limited store space, you could miss out on profits if you don&#x27;t update what you have available. Every item you carry is another item you cannot fit to carry.
    • kryptiskt1 hour ago
      I think this largely is about brand protection. They worry that discounting the clothes means they will just cannibalize sales of that brand&#x27;s full-price clothes.
    • dgellow28 minutes ago
      Thats also the case for a lot of electronics, it’s not just a problem with clothes
    • artisinal1 hour ago
      If the full price is €6, there isn’t much room for a discount. Destroying and freeing up store space for something that does sell can easily be profitable.
    • thibaut_barrere53 minutes ago
      Artificial scarcity + the urge to impose fashion cycles, sadly
    • hawk_1 hour ago
      Selling cheaper cannibalizes next season&#x27;s fashion.
    • close041 hour ago
      Particularly for “luxury” brands as selling at a discount devalues the brand. I use quotes because most of those brands sell cheap stuff (double digit manufacturing cost using forced labor [0]) but with a fancy logo making them worth 4 figures.<p>[0] Better link: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;fashion&#x2F;2025&#x2F;jul&#x2F;24&#x2F;made-in-italy-is-the-label-just-another-luxury-fashion-illusion" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;fashion&#x2F;2025&#x2F;jul&#x2F;24&#x2F;made-in-ital...</a>
    • thaumasiotes1 hour ago
      &gt; Is it cheaper to destroy than sell at discount?<p>Yes.
    • vrganj1 hour ago
      Luxury brands don&#x27;t want the poors to be seen wearing their merchandise.<p>It hurts brand perception.
      • dgellow25 minutes ago
        That’s pretty outdated, luxury brands have been selling cheaper clothes since decades at this point. It’s not uncommon to see people without wealth wearing luxury branded clothes (though of course they are mass produced and aren’t the actual luxurious clothes, just a way to wear the brand name)
  • UltraSane23 minutes ago
    It should be illegal for stores to throw away edible food.
    • charlieyu120 minutes ago
      Makes it more expensive for everyone and also decentivize donating food to homeless or anyone in need.
      • UltraSane15 minutes ago
        how does NOT destroying edible food make food more expensive?
  • carlosjobim38 minutes ago
    What I admire the most about this is that already months before passing this law, all the members of the European Commission signed a document that they as individuals will not purchase any new or expensive clothes during their time in office, as an act of solidarity and to show they also take their individual responsibility to reduce waste.
  • roysting17 minutes ago
    So the corporation can just sell or donate them to their own shell entity in some tax preferred jurisdiction and then destroys them and take a loss that can be shuffled back to the corporation?
  • aaron69537 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • iammjm1 hour ago
    Great! “Fashion” is capitalism’s toxic way of having people discard perfectly good clothes and buy new ones every 12 months. It’s stupid, wasteful, and disgusting
    • josephcsible25 minutes ago
      This has nothing to do with consumers throwing away their old clothes. It&#x27;s specifically about companies throwing away clothes that were never bought by consumers.
  • zkmon32 minutes ago
    Industrial production would far exceed the needs of people in the target markets. Supply chains are also highly streamlined. Some amazon boxes would go to dump unopened, after delivering to customer.<p>The state of perishable goods is much worse. A lot is dumped in food and short shelf-life items. Nothing can be done here. This is not even a brand issue.<p>Do not give license to industrial production or imports that far exceeds the needs of people in that region.
    • dgellow31 minutes ago
      &gt; The state of perishable goods is much worse. A lot is dumped in food and short shelf-life items. Nothing can be done here.<p>That’s already regulated in multiple countries
      • zkmon24 minutes ago
        That&#x27;s interesting. Mind telling how regulation would stop dumping of expired or unconsumed food and other stuff?
        • dgellow14 minutes ago
          Check France 2016 food waste ban: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;world&#x2F;2016&#x2F;feb&#x2F;04&#x2F;french-law-forbids-food-waste-by-supermarkets" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;world&#x2F;2016&#x2F;feb&#x2F;04&#x2F;french-law-for...</a><p>And the more recent non-food waste ban follow-up: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Anti-Waste_and_Circular_Economy_Law" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Anti-Waste_and_Circular_Econom...</a>