EU approves ban on destruction of unsold clothing(dw.com)
dw.com
EU approves ban on destruction of unsold clothing
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-approves-ban-on-destruction-of-unsold-clothing/a-67641000
56 comments
It is ridiculous; I have a 20 year old t-shirt from a middling local brand that is still holding on, so I went and bought a similar one from them a year ago. It fell apart within six months. I cannot figure out where to find good, sturdy clothes anymore.
Edit: I just realized I am wearing said t-shirt right now!
Edit: I just realized I am wearing said t-shirt right now!
it’s literally why i just won’t buy clothes online anymore, not at all. and i know this is anecdotal, but so many people have been telling me the same thing over the last year or two.
so often i’m disappointed, over and over again when i order online vs buying from a store. whether it’s the quality is terrible, the color is just wrong, or the fit is weird, buying online is an awful experience and seems to be getting worse.
i can’t tell you how exhausted i got over time waiting for stuff to arrive, wasting time going through the exchange process, having to ship it back, waiting yet again for the new one to arrive, and then let down again. rinse and repeat over and over, so frustrating.
i know how ridiculous this next thing sounds, but it’s just so much more satisfying doing a full on trip to the mall.
so often i’m disappointed, over and over again when i order online vs buying from a store. whether it’s the quality is terrible, the color is just wrong, or the fit is weird, buying online is an awful experience and seems to be getting worse.
i can’t tell you how exhausted i got over time waiting for stuff to arrive, wasting time going through the exchange process, having to ship it back, waiting yet again for the new one to arrive, and then let down again. rinse and repeat over and over, so frustrating.
i know how ridiculous this next thing sounds, but it’s just so much more satisfying doing a full on trip to the mall.
If you buy socks, buy Stance brand. Super solid. I do not have any other advice unfortunately.
Welcome to the glory of capitalism - if things don’t break you can’t sell more.
To answer your question: Japan. Uniqlo for example is a solid choice and if you want really long lasting things, buy in Japan directly. It’s the only society on the planet that has resisted the insanity of continuously sacrificing quality.
To answer your question: Japan. Uniqlo for example is a solid choice and if you want really long lasting things, buy in Japan directly. It’s the only society on the planet that has resisted the insanity of continuously sacrificing quality.
How about those second hand shops, who supplies them? https://bineboutique.ro/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1_IMG-202...
Maybe they are just discarded "first hand" clothing?
Maybe they are just discarded "first hand" clothing?
Just a random thought, but what if companies were required to include an "expected lifespan" label on clothing.
This article is light on details, but I assume the intent is to warehouse unsold clothing until they are damaged by moths or water, and then throw it away later?
Or do they actually plan to require stores to keep clothing that no one wants on the shelf forever?
Or do they actually plan to require stores to keep clothing that no one wants on the shelf forever?
Exceptions for small companies... Franchise model, is that you knocking? (I haven't read the law, I'm unable to say if that would actually be viable.)
"Just" ban fast-fashion and ban weakening the clothing on purpose (like tears and acid washes) Normally I would not call for bans, but that's Europe and they're into banning things, so that's my recommendation.
The ban on destruction of unsold clothing seems way better-defined and defensible than an abstract idea like "fast-fashion." How would you concretely ban such a thing?
Here in Norway, most consumer goods is protected by a 2 year (5 for long lived items like washing machines) by a rule that says the seller must fix or refund any item which suffers from a production flaw.
Breaking before those 2 years during normal usage is usually considered a flaw. In case of a dispute, it's on the seller to prove that the customer did something that's not considered normal use.
Once an item is fixed, the fix gets another fresh 2 years.
In principle I don't see why most clothing couldn't be covered by a similar scheme. It would force the producers to make clothing that actually lasts. Sure the price would go up, but you'd need less of it.
There's a shop here in Oslo which has moved in this direction[1]. Their stuff is made from durable fabrics and they allow one free repair.
[1]: https://www.northernplayground.no/en/usemore
Breaking before those 2 years during normal usage is usually considered a flaw. In case of a dispute, it's on the seller to prove that the customer did something that's not considered normal use.
Once an item is fixed, the fix gets another fresh 2 years.
In principle I don't see why most clothing couldn't be covered by a similar scheme. It would force the producers to make clothing that actually lasts. Sure the price would go up, but you'd need less of it.
There's a shop here in Oslo which has moved in this direction[1]. Their stuff is made from durable fabrics and they allow one free repair.
[1]: https://www.northernplayground.no/en/usemore
It's not that hard. They take cues from the catwalks, mass produce with quick turnaround and JIT production in familiar paces in the East with added characteristic of low-cost and short shelf life.
A Bonobos is fast-fashion, but a Gitman Bros less so; you'll see the same cloth/pattern/colors year in, year out. Maybe the collars change over time and maybe they'll add darts one year...
A Bonobos is fast-fashion, but a Gitman Bros less so; you'll see the same cloth/pattern/colors year in, year out. Maybe the collars change over time and maybe they'll add darts one year...
> How would you concretely ban such a thing?
Uhmmm, so your answer is to have to some group of people asses every item of clothing or every new brand that pops up to see if it qualifies as fast-fashion based on whether it was influenced by recent catwalk trends or whether the factory it was produced in made it too fast or efficiently. ? yikes. Not sure if you realize that just how subjective and unscalable that is.
Uhmmm, so your answer is to have to some group of people asses every item of clothing or every new brand that pops up to see if it qualifies as fast-fashion based on whether it was influenced by recent catwalk trends or whether the factory it was produced in made it too fast or efficiently. ? yikes. Not sure if you realize that just how subjective and unscalable that is.
They do PDO for food, how hard would it be to do something similar for clothing? This that and the other brand qualify and get some random inspections, this other MFG doesn't meet criteria and gets banned, there you have it.
[deleted]
You’re describing central planning, not PDO (which is labeling requirement).
Easier to just encourage attention to quality by mandating technical grading/disclosure of the fabric, longer warranty pwriods etc.
> "It is time to end the model of 'take, make, dispose' that is so harmful to our planet, our health and our economy." ... "New products will be designed in a way that benefits all, respects our planet and protects the environment."
> The agreement outlined that the European Commission can issue legally binding requirements to make goods such as furniture, tyres, detergents, paints and chemicals more environmentally friendly.
It's interesting to watch how people constantly invent new ways to re-introduce legal concepts that we threw out when we invented liberalism. For example, we got rid of sumptuary laws, which restrict the consumption habits of the lower classes, but now we're bringing them back under the principle of being environmentally friendly.
> The agreement outlined that the European Commission can issue legally binding requirements to make goods such as furniture, tyres, detergents, paints and chemicals more environmentally friendly.
It's interesting to watch how people constantly invent new ways to re-introduce legal concepts that we threw out when we invented liberalism. For example, we got rid of sumptuary laws, which restrict the consumption habits of the lower classes, but now we're bringing them back under the principle of being environmentally friendly.
Sumptuary laws limited expenditure, these laws are intended to limit waste with the pressure applied to the producer and not the consumer.
Fast fashion put waste into overdrive, easily by a factor of two thirds as it specifically encouraged online ordering with free returns so that consumers ordered their size, a size above, a size below and returned two out of three purchases .. rather than sell "worn goods" returns went to land fill.
The mountain of excess production (consuming energy, resources, producing excess CO2, etc) that comes with the past decade of fast fashion brought little of real value and is a practice worth discouraging.
Let the consumer spend by all means, but at least reduce the litter that comes with every purchase.
Fast fashion put waste into overdrive, easily by a factor of two thirds as it specifically encouraged online ordering with free returns so that consumers ordered their size, a size above, a size below and returned two out of three purchases .. rather than sell "worn goods" returns went to land fill.
The mountain of excess production (consuming energy, resources, producing excess CO2, etc) that comes with the past decade of fast fashion brought little of real value and is a practice worth discouraging.
Let the consumer spend by all means, but at least reduce the litter that comes with every purchase.
"This law doesn't prevent consumers from buying X, it prevents vendors from selling X"
The bulk of your comment is just an explanation of why you think sumptuary laws can be good (which may be correct! Not arguing that), not a refutation of the idea that this is a sumptuary law
The bulk of your comment is just an explanation of why you think sumptuary laws can be good (which may be correct! Not arguing that), not a refutation of the idea that this is a sumptuary law
The law is clearly not preventing vendors from selling X, its preventing them dumping it if they can't sell it.
Not sure how people can't see this difference. Preventing companies dumping or disposing of their (harmful) waste (in an unregulated manner) is pretty common practise and generally agreed upon good thing.
Not sure how people can't see this difference. Preventing companies dumping or disposing of their (harmful) waste (in an unregulated manner) is pretty common practise and generally agreed upon good thing.
Read the article, or any of the stuff I quoted. This is more widely-reaching than "you aren't allowed to throw things away" (which would also have a sumptuary effect, although more indirect).
It doesn't prevent the sale of X - it incentivizes vendors from producing X + X^1 + X^2 + X^3 + X^4 etc with the additional production going to pure waste.
Look at the nature of production to meet demand before and after fast fashion .. there's been a sea change to not simply meet demand or provide a little additional choice but to over produce as a means of changing consumer behaviour to milk out every cent with a by product of magnitudes more landfill than has previously existed.
Look at the nature of production to meet demand before and after fast fashion .. there's been a sea change to not simply meet demand or provide a little additional choice but to over produce as a means of changing consumer behaviour to milk out every cent with a by product of magnitudes more landfill than has previously existed.
C’mon, there is a pretty big difference between this and sumptuary law, don’t try to equate them. A sumptuary law is on the consumer and this is on the producer.
When there are two parties to a transaction, it doesn't really matter which party you forbid from making the transaction. The effect is the same, which is all that really matters from an economic standpoint
They're not forbiding any transactions here though, unless you considering yeeting stuff in the garbage a transaction.
Even if true, economics is only one part of the equation.
When society discusses sex work, there is more support for penalizing the traffickers than the workers. This is because morals are an important dimension besides just economics. Similarly, when talking about waste, there is more depth than just thinking about the economic impact.
When society discusses sex work, there is more support for penalizing the traffickers than the workers. This is because morals are an important dimension besides just economics. Similarly, when talking about waste, there is more depth than just thinking about the economic impact.
"You can't compare two things just because their outcomes are the same."
No, you cannot equate two things even if they lead to the same outcome
If the outcomes are the same you can certainly equate the outcomes and if the intent is the same, such as to limit consumption, then you can certainly equate the intent as well. After the intent and the outcome I don't really see how the rest is anything but execution details.
The intent is to limit waste not consumption.
There is a difference that you're not seeing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38538799
There is a difference that you're not seeing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38538799
You're arguing execution details. I don't think the original post was saying this was literally the same thing just that it effectively is. Your argument around intent is largely a reframing that serves to sidestep the obvious disparate impact angles on the matter. "The intent isn't to stifle consumption that's just a predictable consequence of our intent" is an extremely shallow rebuttal.
This is a really interesting point! I think regulation is the wrong way to go in this case. It sounds reasonable until you consider the burden of enforcement. Your comment brings in another dimension of how and why we determine certain things to be poor ideas for the ‘masses’.
I’m not sure why you are downvoted. If history and precedents are anything, then the industry will find new ways to exploit the new laws to their advantage.
Based on other articles I am reading, it sounds like they can't discard them at all.
Does that mean you can just "sell" a lot of clothes to a recycler for $1? Or do they have to keep that ugly jacket on the shelf for decades if they have to? How is this enforceable?
Also, I'm all for durable/repairable clothes, but I'm not sure how much the average consumer is really into darning their own socks. If we want more durable clothes we are talking about less spandex and polyester and more thick and uncomfortable garments.
Does that mean you can just "sell" a lot of clothes to a recycler for $1? Or do they have to keep that ugly jacket on the shelf for decades if they have to? How is this enforceable?
Also, I'm all for durable/repairable clothes, but I'm not sure how much the average consumer is really into darning their own socks. If we want more durable clothes we are talking about less spandex and polyester and more thick and uncomfortable garments.
Presumably they could discount it heavily to consumers or, barring that, donate it to someone who needs it?
But the key issue is how discards allow bad practices. As we prohibit waste, businesses will adjust what they produce and ship accordingly.
But the key issue is how discards allow bad practices. As we prohibit waste, businesses will adjust what they produce and ship accordingly.
So basically if I buy the ugly shirt I get a discount on a good one?
And then the consumer throws it away later? So basically the same disposal, but with extra steps?
This article really needs more details on how they plan for this to actually work.
And then the consumer throws it away later? So basically the same disposal, but with extra steps?
This article really needs more details on how they plan for this to actually work.
So if you're not aware, basically there are a bunch of scenarios where stores are incentivized to over-ship product and then destroy it rather than let it be sold at a loss or low profit. Books are an excellent example: If you've ever heard of a store ripping the covers off books and destroying them, it's because rather than discount them or give them away, they are destroying them and returning the covers (proof of destruction) to the publisher for a refund. Throwing books away is cheaper than shipping them back or elsewhere: They're worth more destroyed, largely because throwing them away is free.
If throwing them away wasn't free, a lot of other interesting options would be more viable... like not shipping excess in the first place, discounting extras to an extreme level (shelf space is worth selling you a book for a quarter at some point), or giving them to charities.
With clothing returns, or Amazon returns in general, the issue is similar: It costs them more to actually check over the product for resale then to just chuck it in the trash. Waste is cheap because waste doesn't require any labor costs.
Forcing a company not to throw away unsold merchandise simply raises the cost of getting rid of it above zero, so they have to seek better options.
If throwing them away wasn't free, a lot of other interesting options would be more viable... like not shipping excess in the first place, discounting extras to an extreme level (shelf space is worth selling you a book for a quarter at some point), or giving them to charities.
With clothing returns, or Amazon returns in general, the issue is similar: It costs them more to actually check over the product for resale then to just chuck it in the trash. Waste is cheap because waste doesn't require any labor costs.
Forcing a company not to throw away unsold merchandise simply raises the cost of getting rid of it above zero, so they have to seek better options.
> Throwing books away is cheaper than shipping them back or elsewhere
So basically it costs less resources to throw them away, and instead we are legislating that people spend extra resources under the guise of reducing resources by not throwing things away.
Sounds backwards to me.
It reminds me of those recycling ideas where you are meant to mail the item somewhere, using more energy to do that, than it would cost to make the item from scratch in the first place. Great plan that.
Or people who drive 20 minutes to recycle glass.
Instead please have a care for the environment and just throw stuff away!
> Forcing a company not to throw away unsold merchandise simply raises the cost of getting rid of it above zero, so they have to seek better options.
In other words things will cost more? So basically these new laws have as a consequence higher prices, and extra resource consumption?
Someone didn't think things though........
So basically it costs less resources to throw them away, and instead we are legislating that people spend extra resources under the guise of reducing resources by not throwing things away.
Sounds backwards to me.
It reminds me of those recycling ideas where you are meant to mail the item somewhere, using more energy to do that, than it would cost to make the item from scratch in the first place. Great plan that.
Or people who drive 20 minutes to recycle glass.
Instead please have a care for the environment and just throw stuff away!
> Forcing a company not to throw away unsold merchandise simply raises the cost of getting rid of it above zero, so they have to seek better options.
In other words things will cost more? So basically these new laws have as a consequence higher prices, and extra resource consumption?
Someone didn't think things though........
No, you're missing half the math: By making it more expensive to discard unprofitable items, companies have a lot more incentive to produce less waste in the first place. This is a correction for an existing insanely harmful business practice: That wasteful production is currently so cheap it makes sense to overproduce, overship, and then just destroy what they don't need later. The solution is for them to make less.
You've re-described the goal. The problem is that your goal doesn't match the reality.
They behave this way because it consumes less resources, by definition: if you spend less money, then you spend less resources (that's what money is for: to acquire resources).
> The solution is for them to make less.
Think about it - wouldn't they do this on their own? I mean it costs them money to make so much. If things are cheap, it's because they don't take much resources to make in the first place.
The regulation has a good goal, and a failed implementation - it actually going to result in more resource consumption, only those resources will be in shipping, handling, storage, etc.
They behave this way because it consumes less resources, by definition: if you spend less money, then you spend less resources (that's what money is for: to acquire resources).
> The solution is for them to make less.
Think about it - wouldn't they do this on their own? I mean it costs them money to make so much. If things are cheap, it's because they don't take much resources to make in the first place.
The regulation has a good goal, and a failed implementation - it actually going to result in more resource consumption, only those resources will be in shipping, handling, storage, etc.
> If things are cheap, it's because they don't take much resources to make in the first place.
Too cheap. And this raises the cost, not in materials but in overall lifecycle cost of producing an item. That's the point. The cost of overproduction is too low, by raising it, bad practices like "buy three and return two which we'll throw away" will no longer make financial sense. The excess shipping, storage, etc. won't happen because it won't be a viable business strategy.
Too cheap. And this raises the cost, not in materials but in overall lifecycle cost of producing an item. That's the point. The cost of overproduction is too low, by raising it, bad practices like "buy three and return two which we'll throw away" will no longer make financial sense. The excess shipping, storage, etc. won't happen because it won't be a viable business strategy.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong about this. The cost to produce something in dollars, is virtually identical to the cost in resource consumption.
If it's cheap to make it's because there's little environmental impact.
It's not a perfect one-to-one, but it's really close.
> practices like "buy three and return two which we'll throw away" will no longer make financial sense
But you are not changing consumer behavior! People will still buy things and return them, and those returned items are worthless, i.e. not sellable. The manufacturer can try to donate them, but no one will want them, or they will just store them forever in cheap warehouses that will burn down every once in a while, or suffer water damage.
Or perhaps you want there to be artificial shortages in stores, so there's just barely enough to buy because the store will be fearful of overbuying something they will have to keep on their shelf permanently?
Please, try to think of the results of your suggestions. You keep thinking only of your goals and not what will actually happen.
If it's cheap to make it's because there's little environmental impact.
It's not a perfect one-to-one, but it's really close.
> practices like "buy three and return two which we'll throw away" will no longer make financial sense
But you are not changing consumer behavior! People will still buy things and return them, and those returned items are worthless, i.e. not sellable. The manufacturer can try to donate them, but no one will want them, or they will just store them forever in cheap warehouses that will burn down every once in a while, or suffer water damage.
Or perhaps you want there to be artificial shortages in stores, so there's just barely enough to buy because the store will be fearful of overbuying something they will have to keep on their shelf permanently?
Please, try to think of the results of your suggestions. You keep thinking only of your goals and not what will actually happen.
In the case of books, the product with value is the content (the words), not the packaging (the pages of the book). Books are very recyclable, though.
The question, really, is what about clothes? Well, it turns out textiles are recyclable as well. That’s what happens to most clothing that’s donated to Goodwill etc. - if they don’t sell, and let’s face it, who wants most threadworn, out of style clothing?— then they’re shredded & recycled.
Spandex is great for comfort, but instead of polyester, they could use more nylon. Nylon is extremely durable compared to most polyesters.
But I agree: repairability for clothes seems a little silly. We have industrial processes (like automated cutting) that make clothes-making extremely efficient, and materials that make them far more comfortable than ever; we just need to improve what we do with them at the end-of-life (i.e., reusing/recycling).
As for the ugly jackets, they should be able to sell these to secondhand stores or the like for next-to-nothing, where they could be sold for very little. Or given to homeless shelters.
But I agree: repairability for clothes seems a little silly. We have industrial processes (like automated cutting) that make clothes-making extremely efficient, and materials that make them far more comfortable than ever; we just need to improve what we do with them at the end-of-life (i.e., reusing/recycling).
As for the ugly jackets, they should be able to sell these to secondhand stores or the like for next-to-nothing, where they could be sold for very little. Or given to homeless shelters.
You could always ship it to a third-world country. Someone out there will buy it.
We already do this. It creates a system of free clothing but also has had the unintended consequence of destroying domestic clothing production.
I mean that’s not actually as big of an issue given it’s mostly unusable by the time it gets there, and the bigger problem is the literal mountains being formed of waste clothing https://www.forbesafrica.com/fashion/2023/01/18/rags-not-ric...
> destroying domestic clothing production
What a weirdly specific whataboutism argument.
Should we stop food or monetary aid along the same argument?
What a weirdly specific whataboutism argument.
Should we stop food or monetary aid along the same argument?
Probably, yes we should. Unless we want the country to be permanently supported by charity.
Aid should certainly be given in exceptional circumstances - drought, illness, war, etc. But not routinely every year.
Aid should certainly be given in exceptional circumstances - drought, illness, war, etc. But not routinely every year.
I have 25 year old clothes that hold up to this very day and I have recently bought farmers and trousers from the same brand which only lasted for half a year compared to early models that I still have and they are intact. And these are not cheapo parts...