8 ms·

EU approves ban on destruction of unsold clothing

48 points by mrzool 3y ago

mc32 3y ago
"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.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  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?
  - mc32 3y ago
    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...
    - somanytta 3y ago
      > 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.
      - mc32 3y ago
        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 3y ago
        [deleted]
        ethanbond 3y ago
        You’re describing central planning, not PDO (which is labeling requirement).
  - magicalhippo 3y ago
    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 https://www.northernplayground.no/en/usemore
- andromeduck 3y ago
  Easier to just encourage attention to quality by mandating technical grading/disclosure of the fabric, longer warranty pwriods etc.
ars 3y ago
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?
MichaelRo 3y ago
How about those second hand shops, who supplies them? https://bineboutique.ro/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1_IMG-20200525-WA0011-1024x768.jpg https://bineboutique.ro/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1_IMG-202... Maybe they are just discarded "first hand" clothing?
lofaszvanitt 3y ago
It might've been a better idea to somehow inform the consumers about the thread tensile strength and other quality indicators, because clothing quality is on a downward slope in the last 10 years, and it's getting worse and worse. They need to regulate the market, just as they regulated the mobile chargers and the like. 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...
- ykonstant 3y ago
  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!
  - toofy 3y ago
    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.
  - gmerc 3y ago
    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.
janosdebugs 3y ago
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.)
closetkantian 3y ago
Just a random thought, but what if companies were required to include an "expected lifespan" label on clothing.
wyager 3y ago
> "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.
- defrost 3y ago
  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.
  - wyager 3y ago
    "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
    - defrost 3y ago
      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.
legitster 3y ago
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.
- ocdtrekkie 3y ago
  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.
  - ars 3y ago
    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.
    - ocdtrekkie 3y ago
      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.

48 points by mrzool 3y ago

mc32 3y ago

"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.

ethanbond 3y ago
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?
- mc32 3y ago
  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...
  - somanytta 3y ago
    > 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.
    - mc32 3y ago
      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 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        You’re describing central planning, not PDO (which is labeling requirement).
- magicalhippo 3y ago
  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 https://www.northernplayground.no/en/usemore
andromeduck 3y ago
Easier to just encourage attention to quality by mandating technical grading/disclosure of the fabric, longer warranty pwriods etc.

ars 3y ago

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?

MichaelRo 3y ago

How about those second hand shops, who supplies them? https://bineboutique.ro/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1_IMG-20200525-WA0011-1024x768.jpg https://bineboutique.ro/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1_IMG-202... Maybe they are just discarded "first hand" clothing?

lofaszvanitt 3y ago

It might've been a better idea to somehow inform the consumers about the thread tensile strength and other quality indicators, because clothing quality is on a downward slope in the last 10 years, and it's getting worse and worse. They need to regulate the market, just as they regulated the mobile chargers and the like. 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...

ykonstant 3y ago
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!
- toofy 3y ago
  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.
- gmerc 3y ago
  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.

janosdebugs 3y ago

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.)

closetkantian 3y ago

Just a random thought, but what if companies were required to include an "expected lifespan" label on clothing.

wyager 3y ago

> "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.

defrost 3y ago
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.
- wyager 3y ago
  "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
  - defrost 3y ago
    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.

legitster 3y ago

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.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago
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.
- ars 3y ago
  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.
  - ocdtrekkie 3y ago
    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.