3 ms·
If the environmental cost is dominated by shipping I could see destruction as more environmentally friendly. This is likely the for many small cheap items.
by lotu 6y ago
If the environmental cost is dominated by shipping I could see destruction as more environmentally friendly. This is likely the for many small cheap items.
- kennywinker 6y agoFine, but two things are happenings: 1. It’s being hidden from consumers, who might adapt their behavior if they knew a return meant the trash. 2. Stuff is shipped back to amazon and then disposed of.
- sokoloff 6y agoI’d they didn’t require step 2, their “return” rates would skyrocket though.
- kennywinker 6y agoTheir return policy is designed to make you buy things without thinking too hard about it or worrying about the quality - the "ah who cares, if it sucks I can just return it" mentality. That strategy means that you buy things you don't need, causing a TON of environmental externalities. So, yeah, they'd have more fraud - maybe their return policy isn't compatible with the environment. Maybe their profit margins are not compatible with the environment. Maybe... just maybe... their entire business model isn't compatible.
- ummonk 6y agoI imagine most consumers who return items would be throwing them away instead.
- kennywinker 6y agoMy thought was, if I knew it was being thrown out, I would be more careful about what I buy. I suspect a lot of people would feel the same way. It's like a mini trolley-problem, but for the guilt of throwing something perfectly good in the trash.