6 ms·

It’s shocking to see this legislated. As if companies are just out here wantonly destroying otherwise valuable goods that could have been easily sold at a prof

It’s shocking to see this legislated. As if companies are just out here wantonly destroying otherwise valuable goods that could have been easily sold at a profit instead. I guarantee this problem is far more complex and troublesome than the bureaucrats would ever understand, much less believe, yet they have no problem piling on yet another needless regulatory burden.

blurbleblurble 8mo ago
They're wontonly destroying and or dumping shitty goods that they got for cheap by externalizing costs.
perfmode 8mo ago
Major fashion houses have been caught destroying clothes to prop up the value of the brand.
tossandthrow 8mo ago
Companies should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they pay for all their negative externalities. It is not OK for anyone to litter, also not companies. One can speculate that this is an easy way to force the companies to pay for their externalities - given that production in third countries are much harder to touch for the EU.
- bravoetch 8mo ago
  Clothing items are so cheap to make it's hard to believe. I used to work in a distribution warehouse for a national baby and children's clothing chain. Containers would arrive from China and we'd enter items into the warehouse stock system. Cost basis for most items was under 10 cents.
- manuelmoreale 8mo ago
  > Companies should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they pay for all their negative externalities. No they shouldn't. Sometimes it's not a matter of paying for the externalities. If you're doing harm at scale the only sane option is to stop doing that, period. When we figured out that leaded gas was bad we didn't make companies pay for their negative externalities. We banned that shit and that was it.
wackget 8mo ago
Yeah, it is shocking. And that's why it needed to be legislated. Companies prove time and time again that they will take the easiest route to minimise losses and maximise profits, even if that means destroying the environment or wasting perfectly good merchandise to do so. They're not destroying clothing because it's inherently unsellable, or hazardous, or damaged beyond repair. They destroy it because it's easier to dump excess stuff than it is to set up responsible channels to get rid of it. Many "high fashion" shithouses intentionally destroy excess stock so that their precious branded status symbols can't get into the hands of the filthy proles, which would dilute their brand recognition. These "regulatory burdens", as you call them, are the only thing holding back companies from further messing up the planet and I welcome them with open arms.
PhoenixFlame101 8mo ago
Luxury brands do in fact intentionally destroy old stock to make sure their value doesn't drop due to excess supply. I suppose the next step is making everything extremely limited like hypercars?
- sschueller 8mo ago
  However hypercars are not purposely limited. It takes an enormous amount of time and labor to build them unlike a handbag where the limit is artificial to sell more.
  - direwolf20 8mo ago
    Are they harder than ordinary cars?
  - roughly 8mo ago
    > However hypercars are not purposely limited Are you serious? Pricing theory includes both supply and demand, and limiting supply makes the remaining items more valuable by dint of rarity. Companies absolutely limit supply on items to maximize profits. How is this even a question?
  - fragmede 8mo ago
    If you think Piero Ferrari isn't above playing the same games as Bernard Arnault, you're not paying attention.
- mikkupikku 8mo ago
  Singer used to do this, they'd give favorable trade-in deals for old sewing machines so they could be destroyed and kept off the second hand market.
ragall 8mo ago
They quite clearly are. Burberry was caught a while ago https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44885983 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44885983, but it's well known that every major upmarket brand was doing it to avoid the loss of prestige of sending the items to outlets.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- camillomiller 8mo ago
  you can try to reason with the people who post comments like the one you're responding to, but the truth is they are just there waiting for anything a regulator does to desparage it, defend corporate and capital, and change nothing about the status quo. The worst part is that they do it thinking they are so edgy for knowing exactly why just another piece of regulation will clearly not work. Funnily enough, the EU track record proves that, apart from some exceptions, these type of regulations work really well. USB-C. Data Roaming across all of Europe. Laws on single use plastics. Etc. But yeah, it's just another regulation! EU BAD!
  - dash2 8mo ago
    It’s a fair criticism, but note the Draghi report: “The regulatory burden on European companies is high and continues to grow, but the EU lacks a common methodology to assess it. The Commission has been working for years to reduce the "stock" and "flow" of regulation under the Better Regulation agenda. However, this effort has had limited impact so far. The stock of regulation remains large and new regulation in the EU is growing faster than in other comparable economies. While direct comparisons are obscured by different political and legal systems, around 3,500 pieces of legislation were enacted and around 2,000 resolutions were passed in the US at the federal level over the past three Congress mandate: (2019-2024). During the same period, around 13,000 acts were passed by the EU. Despite this increasing flow of regulation, the EU lacks a quantitative framework to analyse the costs and benefits of new laws.”
    - ragall 8mo ago
numb7rs 8mo ago
Of course they're not. They're destroying goods that they can't sell at a profit because, for example, the cost of processing some unworn but returned goods outweighs the potential profit from those goods. In TFA it's estimated that between 4% and 9% of clothing put on the EU market is destroyed before being worn. An admittedly high uncertainty, but even 4% of all clothing sold in the EU is still a heck of a lot of clothes.
jeppebemad 8mo ago
I personally know that L’oreal will buy back and destroy products of theirs from outlets, just to keep the prices up. These items are often bought in bulk on grey markets by discount outlets. Not only does L’oreal destroy the products, they pay for them to do so. None of this is shocking IMO.
apexalpha 8mo ago
>As if companies are just out here wantonly destroying otherwise valuable goods that could have been easily sold at a profit instead. They are... Many brands prefer to burn their clothes than to send it to thrift shops or outlets for brand damage. The EU is now putting your brand image a notch down compared to 'not wasting shit'.
geooff_ 8mo ago
It's about preserving brand image. Destroying a product is favourable compared to selling it at a discount and making the brand you spent so much marketing appear "cheap".
anigbrowl 8mo ago
Not sure if sarcasm or cluelessness.
1718627440 8mo ago
Companies can and should participate in law drafting. If they have some not yet mentioned insight they should raise it or just take it to their grave.
kakacik 8mo ago
Shocking? Why such drama? Is this AI text? I don't see anything shocking here. Corporations doing corporatey things, which is maximizing profits and that can easily literally mean destroying unconsumed stuff since it would cost them 2 cents more per tonne to ship it and sell someplace cheaper. Ever heard the term economies of scale for example? Those distort many things in money flows. Those corporations don't give a fuck about mankind, environment, future, long term stuff etc. Any approach to similar topics which gives them benefit of the doubt is dangerously naive and misguided from the start. It's up to society to enforce rules if its healthy and strong enough. Some are better off, some worse.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
lm28469 8mo ago
> As if companies are just out here wantonly destroying otherwise valuable goods that could have been easily sold at a profit instead. I remember watching a documentary in which they tracked a package of coffee returned to amazon (unopened). It traveled through half of Europe to end up in an incinerator in Slovakia, which is funny because amazon doesn't even operate there. Big companies are doing a lot of weird shit because at their scale if it's even 1ct cheaper to burn 10 coffee pods vs reprocessing them back in their store it's going to make a huge difference in the long run.
cromka 8mo ago
It couldn't have been easily sold because brands establish a floor below they don't want to go with value to maintain their perceived premium. It's been known for ages that they operate like this. Some more ethical ones cut off the labels from the garment before they sell it in bulk. Most will destroy the items altogether. This legislation targets this vanity and I applaud it.
toofy 8mo ago
> I guarantee this problem is far more complex and troublesome than the bureaucrats would ever understand if a manufacturer finds it too complex to not overproduce and not add all kinds of negative externalities then their business model is flawed or they’re not up to the task. either way, it isn’t “the bureaucrats” fault they’re overproducing, and they absolutely are overproducing.
kranke155 8mo ago
Luxury brands destroy their items to prevent their clothing from losing value.
matthewfcarlson 8mo ago
They absolutely do, source: warehouse job where you occasionally just opened boxes of unsold merchandise and smashed them. Something something tax write off. I never understood it. US based personal experience from almost two decades ago so take it was a grain of salt.

blurbleblurble 8mo ago

They're wontonly destroying and or dumping shitty goods that they got for cheap by externalizing costs.

perfmode 8mo ago

Major fashion houses have been caught destroying clothes to prop up the value of the brand.

tossandthrow 8mo ago

Companies should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they pay for all their negative externalities. It is not OK for anyone to litter, also not companies. One can speculate that this is an easy way to force the companies to pay for their externalities - given that production in third countries are much harder to touch for the EU.

bravoetch 8mo ago
Clothing items are so cheap to make it's hard to believe. I used to work in a distribution warehouse for a national baby and children's clothing chain. Containers would arrive from China and we'd enter items into the warehouse stock system. Cost basis for most items was under 10 cents.
manuelmoreale 8mo ago
> Companies should be free to do whatever they want, as long as they pay for all their negative externalities. No they shouldn't. Sometimes it's not a matter of paying for the externalities. If you're doing harm at scale the only sane option is to stop doing that, period. When we figured out that leaded gas was bad we didn't make companies pay for their negative externalities. We banned that shit and that was it.

wackget 8mo ago

Yeah, it is shocking. And that's why it needed to be legislated. Companies prove time and time again that they will take the easiest route to minimise losses and maximise profits, even if that means destroying the environment or wasting perfectly good merchandise to do so. They're not destroying clothing because it's inherently unsellable, or hazardous, or damaged beyond repair. They destroy it because it's easier to dump excess stuff than it is to set up responsible channels to get rid of it. Many "high fashion" shithouses intentionally destroy excess stock so that their precious branded status symbols can't get into the hands of the filthy proles, which would dilute their brand recognition. These "regulatory burdens", as you call them, are the only thing holding back companies from further messing up the planet and I welcome them with open arms.

PhoenixFlame101 8mo ago

Luxury brands do in fact intentionally destroy old stock to make sure their value doesn't drop due to excess supply. I suppose the next step is making everything extremely limited like hypercars?

sschueller 8mo ago
However hypercars are not purposely limited. It takes an enormous amount of time and labor to build them unlike a handbag where the limit is artificial to sell more.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  Are they harder than ordinary cars?
- roughly 8mo ago
  > However hypercars are not purposely limited Are you serious? Pricing theory includes both supply and demand, and limiting supply makes the remaining items more valuable by dint of rarity. Companies absolutely limit supply on items to maximize profits. How is this even a question?
- fragmede 8mo ago
  If you think Piero Ferrari isn't above playing the same games as Bernard Arnault, you're not paying attention.
mikkupikku 8mo ago
Singer used to do this, they'd give favorable trade-in deals for old sewing machines so they could be destroyed and kept off the second hand market.

ragall 8mo ago

They quite clearly are. Burberry was caught a while ago https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44885983 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44885983, but it's well known that every major upmarket brand was doing it to avoid the loss of prestige of sending the items to outlets.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
camillomiller 8mo ago
you can try to reason with the people who post comments like the one you're responding to, but the truth is they are just there waiting for anything a regulator does to desparage it, defend corporate and capital, and change nothing about the status quo. The worst part is that they do it thinking they are so edgy for knowing exactly why just another piece of regulation will clearly not work. Funnily enough, the EU track record proves that, apart from some exceptions, these type of regulations work really well. USB-C. Data Roaming across all of Europe. Laws on single use plastics. Etc. But yeah, it's just another regulation! EU BAD!
- dash2 8mo ago
  It’s a fair criticism, but note the Draghi report: “The regulatory burden on European companies is high and continues to grow, but the EU lacks a common methodology to assess it. The Commission has been working for years to reduce the "stock" and "flow" of regulation under the Better Regulation agenda. However, this effort has had limited impact so far. The stock of regulation remains large and new regulation in the EU is growing faster than in other comparable economies. While direct comparisons are obscured by different political and legal systems, around 3,500 pieces of legislation were enacted and around 2,000 resolutions were passed in the US at the federal level over the past three Congress mandate: (2019-2024). During the same period, around 13,000 acts were passed by the EU. Despite this increasing flow of regulation, the EU lacks a quantitative framework to analyse the costs and benefits of new laws.”
  - ragall 8mo ago

numb7rs 8mo ago

Of course they're not. They're destroying goods that they can't sell at a profit because, for example, the cost of processing some unworn but returned goods outweighs the potential profit from those goods. In TFA it's estimated that between 4% and 9% of clothing put on the EU market is destroyed before being worn. An admittedly high uncertainty, but even 4% of all clothing sold in the EU is still a heck of a lot of clothes.

jeppebemad 8mo ago

I personally know that L’oreal will buy back and destroy products of theirs from outlets, just to keep the prices up. These items are often bought in bulk on grey markets by discount outlets. Not only does L’oreal destroy the products, they pay for them to do so. None of this is shocking IMO.

apexalpha 8mo ago

>As if companies are just out here wantonly destroying otherwise valuable goods that could have been easily sold at a profit instead. They are... Many brands prefer to burn their clothes than to send it to thrift shops or outlets for brand damage. The EU is now putting your brand image a notch down compared to 'not wasting shit'.

geooff_ 8mo ago

It's about preserving brand image. Destroying a product is favourable compared to selling it at a discount and making the brand you spent so much marketing appear "cheap".

anigbrowl 8mo ago

Not sure if sarcasm or cluelessness.

1718627440 8mo ago

Companies can and should participate in law drafting. If they have some not yet mentioned insight they should raise it or just take it to their grave.

kakacik 8mo ago

Shocking? Why such drama? Is this AI text? I don't see anything shocking here. Corporations doing corporatey things, which is maximizing profits and that can easily literally mean destroying unconsumed stuff since it would cost them 2 cents more per tonne to ship it and sell someplace cheaper. Ever heard the term economies of scale for example? Those distort many things in money flows. Those corporations don't give a fuck about mankind, environment, future, long term stuff etc. Any approach to similar topics which gives them benefit of the doubt is dangerously naive and misguided from the start. It's up to society to enforce rules if its healthy and strong enough. Some are better off, some worse.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

lm28469 8mo ago

> As if companies are just out here wantonly destroying otherwise valuable goods that could have been easily sold at a profit instead. I remember watching a documentary in which they tracked a package of coffee returned to amazon (unopened). It traveled through half of Europe to end up in an incinerator in Slovakia, which is funny because amazon doesn't even operate there. Big companies are doing a lot of weird shit because at their scale if it's even 1ct cheaper to burn 10 coffee pods vs reprocessing them back in their store it's going to make a huge difference in the long run.

cromka 8mo ago

It couldn't have been easily sold because brands establish a floor below they don't want to go with value to maintain their perceived premium. It's been known for ages that they operate like this. Some more ethical ones cut off the labels from the garment before they sell it in bulk. Most will destroy the items altogether. This legislation targets this vanity and I applaud it.

toofy 8mo ago

> I guarantee this problem is far more complex and troublesome than the bureaucrats would ever understand if a manufacturer finds it too complex to not overproduce and not add all kinds of negative externalities then their business model is flawed or they’re not up to the task. either way, it isn’t “the bureaucrats” fault they’re overproducing, and they absolutely are overproducing.

kranke155 8mo ago

Luxury brands destroy their items to prevent their clothing from losing value.

matthewfcarlson 8mo ago

They absolutely do, source: warehouse job where you occasionally just opened boxes of unsold merchandise and smashed them. Something something tax write off. I never understood it. US based personal experience from almost two decades ago so take it was a grain of salt.