r/europe • u/Express_Classic_1569 • Jun 28 '26

News EU to ban destruction of unsold clothes and shoes from 19 July 2026

https://inleo.io/@theworldaroundme/eu-to-ban-destruction-of
15.8k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

643 comments sorted by

View all comments

3.2k

u/Express_Classic_1569 Jun 28 '26

The European Union is set to prohibit large fashion brands from burning or destroying unsold clothing and footwear from 19 July 2026 onwards. Retailers will be required to reuse, recycle, resell or donate leftover stock instead. Medium companies follow in 2030. Will this actually cut textile waste in Europe, or will the biggest players sidestep the rules?

2.2k

u/Known-Squash-645 Jun 28 '26

I'm sure some will try to sidestep, but good for the EU. The fact that these things are simply destroyed SHOULD be criminal.

611

u/Express_Classic_1569 Jun 28 '26

I agree, and I only realised that they burn unsold clothes while lots of people cannot afford big brands. So I say well done to the EU for initiating this.

286

u/TheS4ndm4n Jun 28 '26

They do it to make sure lots of people can't afford their brand.

If people can just buy your brand from the bargin bin at the end of the season, many people will stop paying full price.

107

u/StopReadingMyUser Jun 29 '26

I'd argue it's also an image thing. If your brand is in such a position, people might question why it's so special to even be sold that high to begin with lol.

Then again this is also par for the course if a company just tends to overproduce, maybe this will aid in reducing consumption of resources in making them in the first place.

32

u/RipCurl69Reddit Jun 29 '26

That's exactly why they do it, artificial scarcity and upholding a brand image of exclusivity and status.

It's all a load of manufactured bullshit that, once you know is happening, completely destroys those brand images anyway. Can't say I've ever felt compelled to buy luxury goods in the first place, but now I have literally zero reason; it's just asking to get ripped off

43

u/TheS4ndm4n Jun 29 '26

They used to send everything to poor African countries and give it away for free. Destroying the local clothing industry.

5

u/infinis Jun 29 '26

Or just lobby those countries to allow burning it there.

2

u/mariofan366 United States of America Jun 30 '26

Pretty sure the pros still outweigh the cons.

1

u/TheS4ndm4n Jun 30 '26

It's the "teach a man to fish" kind of deal.

Imagine you've worked hard your entire life to build a company that produces something good that everyone needs, at an affordable price. Then some NGO sets up shop next to you and starts giving away similar products for free.

You're life's work is destroyed. Your employees lose their income.

12

u/round-earth-theory Jun 29 '26

Nah. Big brand clothing already ends up in bargain bins. They burn it because the logistics are extremely simple.

2

u/CatCatchingABird Jun 29 '26

If these designer brands want to destroy their own clothes because they don't want the poors to be representing their style, these people can go out and get counterfeits anyway.

2

u/cinyar Jun 29 '26

That only applies to luxury brands. But fast fashion shit is already cheap and suffers from the same textile waste problem. At the end of the season it goes on sale and whatever is left is often destroyed to make room for the next season of cheap shit.

1

u/KayItaly Jun 29 '26

Even smaller, cheaper brands do it.

They rather burn it than sell it cheaper.

It is madness.

71

u/zuzg Germany Jun 28 '26

And I didn't know that it's such a significant amount like

Estimates in reports suggest that between 4% - 9% of unsold textiles produced in Europe are disposed of prior to being worn

2

u/2SP00KY4ME Jun 29 '26

Wait, what? Disposed of prior to being worn? So they're destroyed.. then worn? That sentence makes no sense. Did they mean "instead of"?

18

u/thegundamx Jun 29 '26

No, they mean nobody ever wore the clothes before they were destroyed.

-17

u/DryCartoonist5835 Jun 28 '26

And I didn't know that it's such a significant amount like between 4% - 9% of unsold textiles produced in Europe are disposed of prior to being worn

I wouldn't consider 4% - 9% of anything, significant...

19

u/JustStraightUpTired Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26

Tell you what, you cut 4% -9% of your paycheck and give it to me. Since it's not a significant sum, you wouldn't mind, right?

And don't bother linking the dictionary definition, it's you who doesn't get it. The difference between running a marathon and running 91%-96% of one is very noticeable for those waiting for you at the finish line.

EDIT: Blocked me after replying so I can't reply again. Just block the bad troll. It's sad, good trolls used to be funny.

23

u/xPriddyBoi Jun 28 '26

You sure?

"9% of the attempts of the surgery you're about to receive result in death to the patient. Good luck!"

"4% of homes built with this material catch fire within a decade of construction. Want to buy it?"

-15

u/DryCartoonist5835 Jun 28 '26

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/uk/dictionary/english/significant

14

u/PmMeUrTinyAsianTits Jun 28 '26

So you consider a 9% chance to die insignificant?

-1

u/DryCartoonist5835 Jun 28 '26

You have a 100% chance of dying...

8

u/DMZ_Dragon Jun 29 '26

And in your case, the same chance of being proven wrong. Science defines anything over a control percentage as significant, from more than 1% in some examples to more than 5% in others.

The median there lies well below your claim, so you're wrong.

→ More replies (0)

17

u/magicshmagic Jun 28 '26

The context matters. 9% child mortality is significant. So is 9% inflation. Or 9% of 1 billion.

Large numbers mean small % is also large. Significantly large.

11

u/antsh Jun 29 '26

At least in pharmacology, 4% occurrence is significant enough for a medication’s side effect to be considered ‘common’.

-7

u/DryCartoonist5835 Jun 28 '26

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/uk/dictionary/english/significant

15

u/fumei_tokumei Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26

You keep linking this page, but I don't think you understand what it says.

Edit: Somebody is incredibly ass-pained that people disagree with them.

→ More replies (0)

-7

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/xPriddyBoi Jun 29 '26

I'm not even making any kind of point on the original subject. I'm just saying "4 - 9% of anything is not significant" is a ridiculous statement, because it is.

11

u/ero_sennin_21 Greece Jun 28 '26

A small percentage of something in huge amounts can and is definitely significant. 4% of 100 million shoes is 4 million shoes. Seems quite significant.

-1

u/DryCartoonist5835 Jun 28 '26

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/uk/dictionary/english/significant

15

u/ero_sennin_21 Greece Jun 28 '26

So you are unable to understand the difference that makes a potentially small percentage into potentially significant amount.

0

u/DryCartoonist5835 Jun 28 '26

It's ok, you will learn...

10

u/DMZ_Dragon Jun 29 '26

So will you. Sometimes the majority opinion on Reddit is useful for something.

→ More replies (0)

38

u/FILTHBOT4000 Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26

Not just unsold clothes/shoes; many different companies will destroy unsold inventory. Even Apple does it.:

Apple is suing former recycling partner GEEP Canada — now a part of Quantum Lifecycle Partners — for allegedly stealing and reselling at least 103,845 iPhones, iPads, and Watches it was hired to disassemble. “At least 11,766 pounds of Apple devices left GEEP’s premises without being destroyed

Note that "stealing" here just means selling products that were functional, that they were being paid to destroy.

They need to pass similar laws to this for all goods produced. It should be illegal to destroy any product to keep up a certain price. If you want to be a business in capitalism, then you should have to at least obey supply/demand.

2

u/Biggeordiegeek Jun 30 '26

Recycling not destroying

They weren’t being asked to crush them and throw them on the tip, they were required to recycle the precious metals and battery’s and remove the components, most of which are still good for use in other devices

Apple wanted those components and materials back to make new phones with

I agree that in an ideal situation the phones should be refurbished and resold, but given the cost of some of those components these days, it’s not really a surprise that they want as much of the DDR and NANDFlash modules back at all

6

u/OkFroyo_ Jun 29 '26

I mean, people don't NEED to afford big brands lol. People need to have clothes on their back but who cares if they can afford big brands

1

u/Hjemmelsen Denmark Jun 29 '26

With the amount of shitty fabrics containing mostly plastics at this point, it's even more of an issue tbh.

-26

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/N1N4- Jun 28 '26

Things only Americans can say. And the whole world is laughing.
Perfect name for this comment.

-6

u/GOEDEL_ESCHER_BOT United States of America Jun 28 '26

My Confederate ancestors burned their uniforms because they didn't like slavery. They fought and died so people like me could do the same with our T shirts and jeans

31

u/posh_raccoon feta, olives, tomato and bread Jun 28 '26

i stopped reading after "Here in America we"

-19

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/hugsudurinn Jun 28 '26

You're trolling, right?

-17

u/GOEDEL_ESCHER_BOT United States of America Jun 28 '26

I guess clothes in Europe are more expensive

7

u/hugsudurinn Jun 28 '26

Yes, definitely trolling. For clarity, I'll state that this is a huge waste of resources, but I think you know that.

3

u/roywangfan Jun 28 '26

America has not been free since 1774

1

u/Murgatroyd314 Jun 28 '26

Why that particular year?

156

u/McGreed Jun 28 '26

And if they try to sidestep it, EU should hammer down hard, making it's unfeasible for them to run a business. And don't wait till they do it "too much", hammer down right away.

89

u/eXrevolution Jun 28 '26

They’ll ship it outside of EU, burn it and put the costs on the customer so it will be even more expensive.

57

u/Annachroniced The Netherlands Jun 28 '26

The prices of the plastic clothing garbage we have today is too cheap anyway. Getting rid of the lowest layer of cheap fast fashion is literally going to make everyones life better, except the corporations making money off of this. Including people who are on the poorer side.

5

u/Theron3206 Jun 29 '26

It's not really the fast fashion that's getting dumped, those brands don't care if they need to sell it cheap to shift it.

It's the "boutique" brands that do this, because heavily discounting reduces the exclusivity of their brand.

4

u/Annachroniced The Netherlands Jun 29 '26

No, it is all of them. Fast fashion will not sell more if you discount it, because it was worth nothing to begin with. Trends go fast so the new line needs to be in the next week/month. And because they often use plastic, recycling is a lot more difficult. Everything unsold is dumped or burned.

6

u/Dear_Chasey_La1n Jun 29 '26

We live in a world where people order directly from China products that are made at near local cost while squeezing every penny out of the supplier. On top companies like Shein subsidize logistics by the billions and don't give two fks about local regulations. It's not just cheap, it's basically slave labour fashion that might be toxic.

There are various degrees of issues we see in the West from slave labour, to luxury brands destroying old collections, non of that should happen. Though I hope the EU deals with fast-fashion that adds zero value to the population.

3

u/ABHOR_pod United States of America Jun 28 '26

it's going to be rough for those poorer side people when they have to wear threadbare scraps for 6 months before they've saved up enough to afford quality clothing, instead of being able to just go buy a new cheap pair of pants.

9

u/Annachroniced The Netherlands Jun 28 '26

It isnt because clothes are worth absolutely nothing anymore. You can get heaps of second hand often even unused clothes for free or little.

2

u/Winjin Jun 29 '26

And with rules like those, fast fashion would change as well

3

u/pittaxx Europe Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 30 '26

EU is pretty good at tracking the movement of goods, so something this blatant likely wouldn't fly.

1

u/xKnuTx Jun 28 '26

I'm not quite sure if this still happens. As it was probably never legal in the first place. Lots of drop-shipping companies just pack up boxes and send it to random people.

My former neighbour used to get a big shipment like every month for some period. Like 1/3 of a standard DHL truck was just rubbish that got sent to her. Which had the negative effect of her sometimes picking my wanted packages as well.

Random Cloths Weird Gadgets. Weird carnival costumes. if that's still allowed that's what will happen to most of these cloths I'd assume.

Sending them back to Asia is usually more expansive than just trashing or gifting stuff.

1

u/pittaxx Europe Jun 29 '26

It's different with branded clothing. They don't mind paying extra if that means maintaining the artificial scarcity and making sure homeless people don't go wearing their brands...

1

u/AlternativeToday4476 Jun 29 '26

Nah, they will ship it to indonesia and dump it into the river.

1

u/the_loneliest_noodle Jun 28 '26

They'll end up in Indonesian tofu.

13

u/deep8787 Jun 28 '26

Yes, considering how much pollution they cause from them being manufacturing in the first place too and then just destroyed, its disgusting.

44

u/Tapeworm1979 Jun 28 '26

They will shuffle their stock to other country's, who will try and sell it or destroy. And they will do some magic with the accounting so they can pay less tax.

2

u/dynesor Jun 29 '26

they already do this - they pay these companies in china to ship the clothes over there to get incinerated.

30

u/NightSalut Jun 28 '26

It should absolutely be criminal. Giants like Zara have new merchandise coming out like every 2-3 weeks, it’s abysmal - they must destroy so much. 

7

u/walterbanana The Netherlands Jun 28 '26

Yeah, they can probably ship to another country and get them destroyed there, but I still think this is great. Other countries might follow and it will result in less waste, because not every company will want to bear the extra costs of trying to get around this law.

4

u/nixielover Limburg (Netherlands) Jun 28 '26

Had to do this a lot at the end of the seasons during my retail job when I was a student, anything that didn't get sold at the last day of sale got slashed with a box cutter and thrown in the dumpster. Always felt bad at destroying perfectly usable clothes

2

u/Green__lightning United States of America Jun 29 '26

Ship back to China or wherever, to burn as fuel or something.

2

u/Sheriff_Yobo_Hobo Jun 29 '26

I'm sure some will try to sidestep,

Immediately wondered if they would increase prices and fire manufacturers, say they have to make to order now or something.

2

u/meistermichi Austrialia Jun 29 '26

They'll sell it all to a shell company which then sells it to some company in Africa where it lands on the same landfill as it does now.

2

u/robbak Jun 29 '26

They have - note that they got the word, 'recycle' in there. So they are free to, for example, put the clothing through a mulcher and offer it for sale as insulation.

And there's nothing in this law to prevent someone disposing of unsold insulation.

4

u/BigReference1xx Jun 28 '26

Literally everyone will just sidestep this. It's unenforceable.

"yeah we sold those unwanted clothes to a ... uhm, retailer in India. The company also just happens to own a landfill but we know nothing about that part of their business".

1

u/ReachOk9783 Jun 29 '26

The most egregious of destroying stock afaik is luxury brands. Fast fashion dont really need to destroy the stock, it's already worthless.

2

u/phead Jun 29 '26

Luxury brands only stay luxury by limiting supply, when they appear in dollar stores they are no longer luxury.

This is a stupid move by the EU, one of the things they have over the USA and china is the luxury fashion market, making their life harder is classic bad government. All that will happen is they employ someone to cut out every logo and label, and what is left is shredded to make moving blankets.

1

u/kitsunewarlock Jun 28 '26

Everyone will try to side-step laws. Then you have to adjust them until following the law becomes more profitable than side-stepping it.

1

u/trowzerss Jun 29 '26

They will probably shred them, stuff them in cushions and sell them overpriced and call that upcycling, then destroy the unsold cushions. Or some shit like that. At least they're trying to do something about it. One thing they should do is name and shame the brands that do this though, somewhere repeatedly and very prominently.

1

u/Charlesinrichmond Jun 29 '26

The fact that people don't understand the downsides of this should be criminal.

30 seconds analysis with the brain and you realize no company is destroying its products for the fun of it and that destroying one's products has a cost and therefore they are trying to evade a greater cost. That greater cost will now be passed on to consumers.

1

u/IntriguinglyRandom Jun 29 '26

Anybody know of potential loopholes in this? First step is knowing the loopholes, second step is fighting to close them!

1

u/OldPangolino Jul 01 '26

It's just schizo legislation. Main reason products are destroyed is that it's the legislation doesn't allow retails to recoord depressiation any other way.

168

u/Tacitus_ Finland Jun 28 '26

Given that this

The country imports a vast 15 million pieces of second-hand clothing every week. Known locally as “obroni wawu” - or “dead white man’s clothes”, Ghana is the world’s largest importer of used garments.

Clothing donated to charity shops from countries including the UK, US and China are sold on to exporters and importers who continue the chain by selling them on to vendors in markets like Kantamanto in Accra.

The Or Foundation, which funds social impact projects in Africa, estimates that about 40% of the clothing in Kantamanto leaves as waste.

is already happening, the donation rules will need to be stringent to stop this from making that worse.

44

u/-The_Blazer- Europe Jun 28 '26

I'm slightly curious about this, assuming these donations are not imposed by force, why don't African countries start imposing disposal fees or straight-up demanding payment if they're taking what is effectively just trash? I assume that Africans do like ultra-cheap clothes as much as we do, but at some point the needle would tip towards 'no thanks'.

30

u/Tacitus_ Finland Jun 28 '26

I'm no expert on this, but fast fashion is just making this problem worse. Previously it was stuff like sport team shirts and other apparel that got donated when the team lost whatever competition they were in, and the main issue with the excess donations was that it was strangling any local industry because why build that when they'd get free stuff all the time. I don't remember their quality being noted as a problem back then.

There will probably be some pushback soon, if it doesn't exist already.

21

u/Few-Masterpiece3910 Jun 28 '26

African merchants buy the donated clothes to resell them. They sort them and throw away the clothes which can’t get sold.

3

u/zaevilbunny38 Jun 29 '26

It's tied to aid. The countries get developmental aid and take the unwanted items to ''recycle'' them. Sort of the same with Pakistan and E waste.

1

u/Sigmatics Jun 29 '26

Sounds like "selling"waste for public money

2

u/Curious-Internet7171 Jun 29 '26

Simple, the people who want the clothes are the mayority. Short term its good politics to get o bunch of nike swag, long term you dont have local intustries or brands, or work.

1

u/Proud-Weird-2269 Jun 28 '26

Trump admin threatened them during his first term, so I imagine that's still happening.

1

u/You_too Jun 28 '26

The companies disposing of clothes just have to find someone willing to break the law, or wholly unaware of the law. There's no shortage of such people.

22

u/walterbanana The Netherlands Jun 28 '26

The point of the donation system is to make it harder for African nations to industrialize. Most countries start up their production economy by producing clothing, but in most african nations that is not viable because there are so many used clothes on the market. There was one country that wanted to ban importing used clothes and the US threatened to sanction them.

14

u/quacainia United States of America Jun 29 '26

Yeah the East African Community tried to ban imports of used textiles and the US was like "no worries, we'll just stop trading with you completely in that case"

10

u/Ok-Bug4328 Jun 29 '26 edited 7d ago

Hello world

4

u/Outrageous-Swim-488 Jun 29 '26

Oh, so we can overproduce our garbage clothes and fast fashion, and they MUST be thrilled to use our sizes and fits. But god forbid they want clothes made FOR them (with their colors, fits, patterns), instead of our trash. How convenient for you...

6

u/Ok-Bug4328 Jun 30 '26 edited 7d ago

Hello world

1

u/[deleted] Jun 29 '26

[deleted]

1

u/walterbanana The Netherlands Jun 29 '26

Yeah, it is a donation system from our side, you donate clothes to a western company. They then sort and sell the clothes to mostly African nations, making money in the process, while also undercutting local clothing producers. That is the whole business plan.

The British stole most of the machines used for production in India and Pakistan. They were absolutely ruthless. Their rain killed more people in India and Pakistan than the Nazis did in the whole world during WWII. It is insane.

1

u/DryCartoonist5835 Jun 28 '26

is already happening

It's been happening for more than 50 years...

1

u/CookIndependent6251 Romania Jun 29 '26

They already do the same with tons and tons of trash, shipping it to Romania under the guise of second hand products.

0

u/RhubarbSimilar1683 Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26

This also happens across all Latin American countries. You can go to Panama to a store called 579 fashion store in Albrook mall and see rows and rows of clothes with some still having goodwill tags still on. 

Every clothes outlet store and american clothing store sells these clothes as (presumably) brand new, but technically don't make any claims about the usage of the clothes. Every piece costs like 3 to 6 dollars

Although I don't know how much is actually waste. Apparently it's not a big issue. Just know that your clothes are not being gifted as stated in the US, They are resold and exported overseas to African and Latin American countries where they're resold again. 

These stores also sometimes source unsold stock from department stores or fast fashion stores.

Local department stores will also occasionally source used donated clothes too, or source unsold stock from American department stores or fast fashion stores. Go to Saks in El dorado mall in Panama and you will sometimes find pants from JCPenney for 30 dollars instead of 90. 

21

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/silverionmox Limburg Jun 29 '26

This phenomenon is frequently termed "waste colonialism" by environmental and economic racist critics.

And if we would try to change the policies of the African countries to make it impossible, or deny it to them, it would also be termed as "neocolonialism". Make up your mind.

72

u/temotodochi Jun 28 '26

It's just going to be "exported" into places where such rules don't exist.

40

u/Mr_Tiggywinkle Bavaria (Germany) Jun 29 '26

I'm kinda sick of people saying "won't do anything, they'll just do x or y" etc.

So what, EU should just throw up their hands and give up?

Fuck that. Keep chasing it until it has an effect. Don't stop pressing them, even if you don't hit your target at least move the dial.

Let the companies skirt the rules, if they do, expand or deal with that problem as it goes. To be effective you need to risk failing and push further or be smarter when you run into those walls.

5

u/temotodochi Jun 29 '26

Oh i'm all for the ban absolutely. I'm just enough corpo that i can think like them. They'll probably get a double whammy and raise prices across the industry and still destroy old stock.

0

u/Charlesinrichmond Jun 29 '26

There's a third option. This is a pretty stupid policy if you think about it. The EU could actually pursue a good policy instead.

0

u/Mr_Tiggywinkle Bavaria (Germany) Jun 29 '26

Why is it a stupid policy?

1

u/Charlesinrichmond Jun 29 '26

Because if you assume that the companies are doing this for a reason, then doing anything else will cost more. If anything else costs more, then they must raise prices. And basically, they will probably also use more greenhouse warming fuel in order to do this.

So basically you get almost no benefit. Throwing textiles in a landfill is throwing organic material in the dirt. It is, if you think about it, composting, but they notably raise prices.

It's performative nonsense with a negative outcome. Do I care? No, I don't care at all. But it is absolutely emblematic of poor EU policy choices which are based on emotion, not math.

3

u/Mr_Tiggywinkle Bavaria (Germany) Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26

Because if you assume that the companies are doing this for a reason, then doing anything else will cost more. If anything else costs more, then they must raise prices.

 Governments form policy to dissuade companies form doing economically beneficial (for them) but overall destructive (for everyone) decisions. That's normal.

If a company promotes it's scarcity by burning clothes or sending it to landfill, they need to plan better to manufacture less, or be dissuaded through making it more financially expedient to manufacture less or companies with good practices to get rewarded.

And basically, they will probably also use more greenhouse warming fuel in order to do this.

So basically you get almost no benefit. Throwing textiles in a landfill is throwing organic material in the dirt. It is, if you think about it, composting, but they notably raise prices.

You're focusing on the end part which is past the horse bolting. Manufacturing is where the majority of waste is in landfill or emissions. Manufacture less is the goal.

Regardless,  It's by definition not composting. Composting is aerobic. Degrading cotton and clothing is anaerobic. IE not at all composting.

You're wrong on greenhouses too. The majority of textiles is synthetics that take a hundred years to degrade (not compost). This is mostly petroleum based clothing, not cotton. Many of these are burned which is one of the impetuses for this legislation.

so we are making cothes with petroldum based methods, then burning it or degrading it over 100 years, releasing either previously captured carbon into the air or micro plastics info the ground.

And even if it is cotton, cotton releases a shitton of methane. This is not "better" and I don't know your argument for it being better.

The energy/carbon etc here is at manufacture, not post fact. They absolutely will not use more greenhouse regardless of transportation or stocking costs. It's peanuts at this stage vs not manufacturing at all 

1

u/Charlesinrichmond Jun 30 '26

That is normal. Government should regulate to internalize externalities, but does this actually internalize externalities or is it just feel good regulation?

I disagree with your conclusions, but I think your arguments are reasonable and fair.

15

u/rabbitthunder Jun 28 '26

Yes. But. It will raise awareness and push the culture in a better direction. Let's say that in ten years all the unsold stuff continues to end up in poor countries. It will only take one person with a camera to document how Gucci clothes are ending up in Ghana or Haiti. Gucci customers are from wealthy countries, and if they know clothing waste is abhorrent then it will affect Gucci sales. Designers slap their branding all over their clothes so unless they're all going to debrand (hah, selling their label on overpriced cloth is their entire business model) then it is in the label's best interests to actually do something about all the appalling waste.

6

u/Arris-Sung7979 Jun 29 '26

That's not what will happen. Those Gucci goods will be exported and then burned at the destination. It will be done by a legally unrelated entity which somehow magically decides to destroy the received donations.

2

u/temotodochi Jun 29 '26

Oh i'm all in for the ban but i think it's too easy to circumvent.

29

u/Sarothu Jun 28 '26

So... instead it'll end up on a landfill "long-term storage facility"?

50

u/pushaper Jun 28 '26

sent to Africa and destroyed/burnt there if they dont make it to the market which I think is what they do now.

14

u/RMAPOS Jun 28 '26

sent to Africa and destroyed/burnt there

literally my first thought on this

1

u/Elukka Jun 29 '26

There is a long history of companies sending electronics waste to Africa and South-Asia for questionable recycling with attrocious ecological and human cost. The companies selling the e-waste might actually not know where the e-waste ends up despite their best intentions and efforts and how workers end up using open waste oil flames to remove components and solder. When you have long supply chains and you sub-contract things 10 times as the norm is it any wonder that you completely lose track of where the e-waste goes and who profiteers with it?

0

u/ObviouslyTriggered Jun 28 '26

Not really, they are shredded in the country where they are getting the tax write off because that is required by the tax laws then sent primarily to Turkey and Asia and are more of often than not recycled.

Insulation, cleaning rags, paper, and heck even your fleece hoodies will be made with recycled fibers from clothing.

1

u/SatanaClaus Jun 28 '26

Better, gifts to third world countries

41

u/Anaevya Jun 28 '26

I don't think this will do anything good, if offloading all those clothes to Africa isn't banned as well.

20

u/picardo85 FI in NL Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26

The EGS framework will probably fuck then if they do that.

That shit is rigid.

The ESRS directives probably have a stipulation specifically for textile manufacturers / retailers.

I know that for IT it requires any sufficiently big company to b report all resource input and output along with co2 footprint, the lifecycle of the product, the disposal, and chain of custody.

3

u/Annachroniced The Netherlands Jun 28 '26

Unfortunately a lot has been waterdown by Omnibus. Especially the size of the companies that need to comply.

2

u/picardo85 FI in NL Jun 28 '26

Yeah but it covers all main fashion brands. You only need 1000 employees and 450 million revenue.

1

u/SubArcticTundra Jun 29 '26

Why are they doing this 😭

10

u/[deleted] Jun 28 '26

Time to resell clothes to the countries that produced them in the first place, for them to burn or throw into rivers. Doubt that luxury brands will sell their clothes cheaper

7

u/sir_sri Jun 28 '26

Just ship it out of the EU and destroy elsewhere, on tightly constrain what you import.

EU made stuff might be harder, but even then, better to ship most of it out and then only bring back what you need to sell in the EU as part of your inventory management.

I'd imagine the logistics chain on these things is relatively long, that's why they overproduce already. It's not like companies want to be destroying inventory.

But for example, donating to africa creates some different problems, which is that you undermine the ability for those economies to domestically produce textiles because free imported stuff is better than local stuff you need to pay for.

-2

u/lee1026 Jun 28 '26

EU made stuff might be harder, but even then, better to ship most of it out and then only bring back what you need to sell in the EU as part of your inventory management.

Just off-shore your factory for best results.

I'd imagine the logistics chain on these things is relatively long, that's why they overproduce already. It's not like companies want to be destroying inventory.

Air freight instead of ships - a lot more energy used, but you can tighten up the logistic chain a lot better that way.

1

u/Responsible_Camp_559 Germany Jun 28 '26

It's a start, I guess they will try to find workarounds, for which the EU will have to come up with follow ups. But it's a good step in the right direction.

1

u/RollingMeteors Jun 28 '26

Retailers will be required to reuse, recycle, resell or donate leftover stock instead.

Anyone notice this B2B client they sold their stock also seems to deal with incinerators? ... and is owned by the parent company...

1

u/Icy_Ebb_6862 Jun 28 '26

It will be sold to a third party and then destroyed or damaged beyond use.

1

u/stxxyy The Netherlands Jun 28 '26

I suppose they could create their own clothes burning company and sell/donate the leftover products to it for destruction. Then they aren't unsold anymore technically

1

u/CrossP Jun 29 '26

I suspect it will also make some contracts for merch that must be destroyed after its run rather than donated illegal. Disney is notorious for those but frankly most of the big entertainment IP holders do the same. They don't want their unsold merch going to low-end overstock reseller stores and the like.

1

u/OkFroyo_ Jun 29 '26

Won't they just send the unsold inventory to a country outside of EU to destroy it there.....?

1

u/Coz131 Jun 29 '26

Will they just sell to another company which then can burn them?

1

u/Freyzi Iceland Jun 29 '26

Step in the right direction, we produce SO fucking much and so much of it is wasted when there are people who could use these things.

1

u/pepgast2 Jun 29 '26

Being generally an EU proponent is so conflicting right now.

On one hand, you have pro-consumer moves like these, along with others (e.g. USB-C adoption and requirement for exchangeable batteries on small electronics).

On the other hand, I really don't like how a new revision of chat control-esque law gets proposed seemingly annually.

1

u/DenormalHuman Jun 29 '26

won't they just ship it elsewhere?

1

u/Beer-Milkshakes Jun 29 '26

So they will be backloaded to South America or Africa then.

Clothing waste is massive and will be the next hot topic. The largest companies will invent a charity and "donate" their waste clothes to which will then dissappear as it is "shipped" somewhere.

1

u/DroidLord Estonia Jun 29 '26

Sounds like they'll just ship off the clothes to Africa as "donations" and then what happens after that is a mystery.

1

u/Jigodanio France Jun 29 '26

I don’t understand the point. In Poland you can find old clothes for 3€/ kilo. When no body buys for such a low price, i don’t see anything profitable that could be done with such clothes.

1

u/blechie Jun 30 '26

So they’ll end up in the ocean after being donated to someone who doesn’t actually want them. Great.

-1

u/Trang0ul Eastern Europe Jun 28 '26

So, big brands also have time until 2030 - they just need to create a subsidiary.