12 ms·
EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application
- cassianoleal 3mo agoHow long until they start shipping those abroad where they will become toxic bonfires?
- wolvoleo 3mo agoThat can be penalised too. We really have to get away from the idea that curtailing intentional industrial waste production is futile. Perhaps in American style capitalism it is because the system is rigged and the biggest money bag always wins. But we don't want this here at all. We have to get forward as humanity and treat our planet with respect. Otherwise we won't have one worth living on. Making money isn't the only thing that counts.
- graemep 3mo agoI agree we should, but that does not mean that a particular regulation is the right way to do it. Its very hard to close loopholes and exploitation of exemptions.
- ChrisLTD 3mo agoYou have to start somewhere, no? We have laws against stealing and murder and folks don’t usually go around saying they should be removed from the books because some people still steal and commit murder.
- graemep 3mo agoYes, but those laws are pretty effective. They do deter murderers and thieves, and take them out of society so they cannot repeat their offences. Ill thought out regulations can make things worse - I am convinced this is the case for the UK's Online Safety Act, for example. That (and the proposed ban on social media for under 16s) is also promoted on "we must do something" grounds. I am very much in favour of some proposed changes under the law - e.g. improving repairability and reusability of some product categories. I have doubts that some discouragement of destruction of new products fixes the big underlying problem with clothing: the production of cheap junk not designed to last. Under these regulations (at least as summarised in the article), they offer it to charity, charity rejects it, then they are free to destroy it.
- ChrisLTD 3mo agoWhy would this law make things worse? What would your proposal be for fixing what you’ve identified as the underlying problem?
- csydas 3mo ago>Yes, but those laws are pretty effective. They do deter murderers and thieves This is really not true at all for violent crimes. Acts of violence are not really done by rational actors, same with many crimes. The death penalty / life in prison does not deter someone who has already decided that violence is an acceptable response to situations, and the story is similar with non-violent crimes; deterrence isn't really considered when someone has already made the decision to steal or do drugs. Deterrence doesn't change the conditions that contribute to those sorts of crimes; the law is more about restoring society as best it can, and in many countries it's about retribution / revenge more than anything. With corporations, the conditions that lead to the undesired behavior is economical, and addressing the undesired behavior through economic methods seems appropriate -- if it's no longer economical to perform the undesired behavior, the company has to decide where they want to eat the cost. In the case of the EU ban from the article, I suppose some companies may make the decision to pack up and leave, but my experience is many in the EU would be pretty okay with this with regards to clothing. There is a lot of interest in EU regarding sustainable, made in EU clothing and reusability, etc. So if the goal is just to reduce clothing product waste in EU, losing fast-fashion companies and some luxury brands that most of the population won't / can't buy anyways probably isn't going to be such a big deal.
- wolvoleo 3mo agoYeah I think we should also move from giving financial penalties to bad corporate actors, to custodial sentences to their top execs and board members. If their own safety and livelyhood is at stake they will be a lot more careful. If we just fine the company they'll just take it as an extra cost in their business equation. After all these people often say they deserve the high pay due to the high responsibility they have. But they don't, really. They screw up and they get a golden parachute. It was really sickening how the top of volkswagen got off scot-free after doing this calculated manipulation of their diesels. The buck should stop there. They blamed their lower engineers but it's not fair, either the top did know (the most likely option IMO) or they set such unattainable goals for their lower staff that they had no choice but to do this. Either way, it is the top's fault. And indeed, the goal of the EU is to minimise fast-fashion. I have to say the quality of Shein stuff is also awful which makes these things something you buy and wear two or three times before they rip. Especially with the kind of stuff I buy. I tend to buy handmade pieces that last me for years if you look after them. Made from real materials by craftspeople. I spend 100-200 euro on one but they really stand out between all the cheap shein/temu crap.
- sorokod 3mo agoNaming and shaming is a reasonable first step.
- amelius 3mo agoWe need judges that don't just look at the letter of the law. We can already use computers for that.
- dgellow 3mo ago1. Come up with a regulation idea 2. do a bunch of studies to validate it 3. go through a pretty complicated, comprehensive, pretty long review process to debate and make it work within the existing regulatory system 4. eventually implement it 5. measure its impact 6. adapt or revoke according to the results We are at the 4th step. Why would you assume your concerns haven’t been already taken in account in all the previous steps? It’s all public, you can look for the reasoning and justification
- thesmtsolver2 3mo agoWasn’t it the US that caught European companies in the emissions scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
- OKRainbowKid 3mo agoOk, what's your point?
- wiz21c 3mo agoAt least they're trying.
- Hackbraten 3mo agoThat loophole has become very difficult: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/waste-shipments/plastic-waste-shipments_en https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/...
- boredhedgehog 3mo agoBut when does a product become waste? When the owner says it is.
- mtrovo 3mo agoYou're half joking but this actually happens already. As you can imagine there's a lot of backlash on dumping good clothes on Europe itself so they export them in bad conditions just to have it burned out of sight. https://changingmarkets.org/report/trashion-the-stealth-export-of-waste-plastic-clothes-to-kenya/?hl=en-GB https://changingmarkets.org/report/trashion-the-stealth-expo... And it's not just old clothes being discarded, another related study showed that around 30% of clothes returned from online stores are not even looked over to see if they're worth selling again and are discarded straight away.
- thefourthchime 3mo agoI'm pretty sure they're docking the ship right now.
- tliltocatl 3mo agoAt that point they might skip the bonfire part (or the locals would without asking their permission), which is kinda the whole point.
- xnx 3mo agoIs this a problem in the EU? I often think in terms of home remodels that a family might do at least once. Those can easily fill a dumpster with tons of garbage. That's much more waste than a family could ever generate directly or indirectly in clothing.
- embedding-shape 3mo ago> I often think in terms of home remodels that a family might do at least once Very interesting point of view, as someone who never done a home remodel, it surely brought a new perspective for me. > That's much more waste than a family could ever generate directly or indirectly in clothing. I'm not sure, if you have two kids who are into trendy clothing and you're able to let them make choices around clothing, then I can imagine that there is quite high turnover on those things. Besides, the proposed rules seems to try to address waste generated by businesses rather than individuals or families. I guess currently they throw outdated clothing in order to make space for the new clothing lines?
- pcdevils 3mo agoIt's companies dumping unsold ranges of clothes as new ranges come in. Not people.
- tialaramex 3mo agoYa, and this is hugely driven by "Fast Fashion". If you're a company which made raincoats since the 1880s and the style with more buttons and few zips starts to be less popular maybe you make fewer of those and more of the zip ones next season, and in five years you've gone from 90% button 10% zip to the reverse. Companies like that don't destroy a lot of stock. They do a few discount sales, end-of-line price slashes, that sort of thing, but this "destroy clothes to make money" wasn't a thing. In fast fashion you're shipping a knock-off of the $8000 designer swimsuit seen in a Paris catwalk show at the start of July, a preview of your $150 version was shown in a TikTok video that blew up on Friday and your customers will be wearing them on the beach next weekend. By August that product is old news, you do not want that $150 product available for $5 in a discount store or your consumers might rebel - so you want to burn it instead and the EU says no, that's a perfectly good swimsuit, sell it to somebody who needs a swimsuit. Or give it away. If "fast fashion" no longer makes economic sense now, too bad, I guess you won't do it any more. The EU's citizens do not want you to destroy the planet they live on just to get more money. We made money up. Stop being crazy.
- amazingamazing 3mo agoWhy would this ever happen? Is it cheaper to destroy than sell at discount?
- thaumasiotes 3mo ago> Is it cheaper to destroy than sell at discount? Yes.
- ascorbic 3mo agoYes, clothing companies and stores will very commonly destroy clothes if they determine that selling at a discount would undermine the brand value. They do things like cutting holes in the soles of shoes before discarding them.
- thrance 3mo ago> The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth. John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath
- embedding-shape 3mo agoSome stuff you basically have to give away for people to buy, some stuff just isn't so attractive to most people. With limited store space, you could miss out on profits if you don't update what you have available. Every item you carry is another item you cannot fit to carry.
- close04 3mo ago
- tancop 3mo agosome places already do this for food where anything thats after sell by date but still safe to eat has to be donated to a food bank. i think it should be expanded to cover more categories than food and clothes when reuse and recycling infra grows to take the demand. its not just good for the environment it also prevents producers from restricting supply to keep their profits high. the ultimate goal is make it illegal to destroy or intentionally damage anything usable before it reaches consumers. that would create a new ecosystem of discount stores and giveaway centers, and save everyone a ton of money.
- jandrewrogers 3mo agoWho pays for the logistics cost of moving and stocking these products in discount stores and giveaway centers? That is a large percentage of the total cost of production and the reason disposal is cheaper. If those costs are paid for by taxpayers then the consumers are in effect involuntarily buying products they would not have otherwise bought, just with more steps. We already see this with agricultural subsidies. If those costs are charged back to the producer then it becomes economically optimal to under-produce, which will cause prices to rise and risk shortages but eliminate waste. One can make the argument that higher prices for basic goods to reduce waste is a social good but it also impoverishes consumers. All of these scenarios have happened empirically countless times. That almost every producer over-produces to some extent at no profit to themselves when allowed has strong "Chesterton's Fence" characteristics.
- rzwitserloot 3mo agoIt's a somewhat blunt instrument used to internalize some externalities: Making a product and then destroying it is wasteful, and the market will fix all internalized costs of that waste, but some of those costs are externalized. Having society pay somewhat for producing clothes that are then worn, that's one thing. Having society pay for pointless waste is another. What you've said is: Looking only at the internalized costs, pointless-wasting a percentage of clothes costs X but reduces clothes cost in the store by Y, with Y being larger than X. Okay. Irrelevant - that math doesn't include externalized costs. It may well be that this is a stupid idea, but "market decided destroying some clothes was more efficient" doesn't prove anything unless you can show that the size of the externalized costs to this process are 0 or close enough to 0 to have no meaningful relevance.
- Saline9515 3mo agoIt looks like a great opportunity for mafia networks to get paid by clothing brands in order to dispose of the stocks.
- palata 3mo agoI mean at this point they may as well have a deal to let the mafia steal cars in the parking lot and share the benefits...
- kps 3mo agoNow I'm imagining someone dumped in the river chained to a pallet of t-shirts rather than a cinder block.
- HelloUsername 3mo agoin order to dispose of the socks
- iammjm 3mo agoGreat! “Fashion” is capitalism’s toxic way of having people discard perfectly good clothes and buy new ones every 12 months. It’s stupid, wasteful, and disgusting
- josephcsible 3mo agoThis has nothing to do with consumers throwing away their old clothes. It's specifically about companies throwing away clothes that were never bought by consumers.
- ezfe 3mo agoWhich they do to maintain their fashion reputation and image. It absolutely is related.
- nieksand 3mo agoIt seems like this policy would lead to shortages in less common sizes of clothing.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- josephcsible 3mo agoHow do you figure?
- flowerbreeze 3mo agoIt seems plausible. Less common sizes have a lower chance of being sold out, so if they can no longer be destroyed at the end and need to be further managed at lower quantities, it can become more cost effective to simply not make them. Whether it is true or not, I don't know.
- palata 3mo agoHmm... say you estimate that you will sell 1000 items of "normal size", you stock 1000 items, and hope that you sell all of them. You end up selling 900, you have a remaining 10%. No say you estimate that you will sell 10 items of "less common size", you stock 10 items, and hope that you sell all of them. You end up selling 9, you have a remaining 10%. How does that make a difference?
- jandrewrogers 3mo agoThere is no global definition of "less common size". It varies greatly from one locale to another. At the same time, production has relatively high fixed costs and is centralized. It would be very expensive for the global factory to customize the distribution of sizes manufactured for a retail store in Des Moines, Iowa. The order is tiny and it would require customized logistics, all of which greatly increases cost and complexity.
- flowerbreeze 3mo ago
- carlosjobim 3mo agoWhat I admire the most about this is that already months before passing this law, all the members of the European Commission signed a document that they as individuals will not purchase any new or expensive clothes during their time in office, as an act of solidarity and to show they also take their individual responsibility to reduce waste.
- aaron695 3mo ago[dead]
- zkmon 3mo agoIndustrial production would far exceed the needs of people in the target markets. Supply chains are also highly streamlined. Some amazon boxes would go to dump unopened, after delivering to customer. The state of perishable goods is much worse. A lot is dumped in food and short shelf-life items. Nothing can be done here. This is not even a brand issue. Do not give license to industrial production or imports that far exceeds the needs of people in that region.
- dgellow 3mo ago> The state of perishable goods is much worse. A lot is dumped in food and short shelf-life items. Nothing can be done here. That’s already regulated in multiple countries
- zkmon 3mo agoThat's interesting. Mind telling how regulation would stop dumping of expired or unconsumed food and other stuff?
- dgellow 3mo agoCheck France 2016 food waste ban: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/04/french-law-forbids-food-waste-by-supermarkets https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/04/french-law-for... And the more recent non-food waste ban follow-up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Waste_and_Circular_Economy_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Waste_and_Circular_Econom...
- cbg0 3mo agoSupermarkets are forced to discount soon-to-expire items which go into "bargain bins".
- UltraSane 3mo agoIt should be illegal for stores to throw away edible food.
- charlieyu1 3mo agoMakes it more expensive for everyone and also decentivize donating food to homeless or anyone in need.
- UltraSane 3mo agohow does NOT destroying edible food make food more expensive?
- groundzeros2015 3mo agoBecause it costs money to store and distribute.
- s1artibartfast 3mo agoThey have to deal with less sales and or storing excess inventory. Let's say you have some bruised bananas. You either have to keep them on the shelf till they rot (less space for sellable product) or donate them and then people won't buy as many bananas, so you need to raise the price.
- IneffablePigeon 3mo agoPeople eating donated bananas are not buying bananas if there are none available for free. They are just not eating bananas.
- s1artibartfast 3mo agoSays who? Would you prefer free bananas or paying?
- jandrewrogers 3mo ago
- dash2 3mo agoI don’t understand why they would ban this rather than charge for it. It seems very likely that destroying unsold clothes is sometimes the socially efficient thing to do, even after taking into account the environmental externalities.
- cromka 3mo agoBecause it promotes recycling instead of being another tax.
- bulder 3mo agoDestroying unsold clothes is financially the most efficient thing to do. It remains unclear to me how taking actions to maintain higher markups on products would be socially efficient in any way. Companies of course can keep doing it, they just will face financial and legislative repercussions for it.
- 3mo ago
- roysting 3mo agoSo the corporation can just sell or donate them to their own shell entity in some tax preferred jurisdiction and then destroys them and take a loss that can be shuffled back to the corporation?
- parisiansam 3mo ago[dead]
- okr 3mo agoSo i buy from my own money fabrics, machines and also i pay handy people to make clothes out of it. I can not sell them all. My Risk. And as an additional punishment i lose the right to do whatever i want with my own property? Mad world.
- tacomagick 3mo agoSo I buy my own factory and produce my own pollutants and I dont have the right to do whatever I want with them, mad world.
- no-name-here 3mo agoAnd per OP article: 1. This only applies to companies above a certain size. 2. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of textiles are destroyed each year in the EU before use. 3. In Germany alone, companies destroy tens of millions of garments per year under just one of the existing justifications for destroying garments before use.
- mistrial9 3mo agoit is not the year 1800 any more, some things have changed
- psalaun 3mo agoOn a planet with infinite resources it may be a mad world. On one where oil will be depleted at some point and fast fashion brands are collectively creating thousands of disposable plastic clothes models in dozen of millions of nuits per month, it's common sense to limit the madness of this industry
- loeg 3mo agoOur planet has effectively infinite resources. We're probably past peak oil extraction and have plenty left, nevermind that the vast majority of clothes aren't made of plastic. This policy is dumb as hell.
- dennis_jeeves2 3mo ago
- sajithdilshan 3mo agoI’m pretty sure all those brands would now export those clothes to non-EU Balkan countries or even Turkey to be destroyed.
- mikaeluman 3mo agoIndeed. Rather than deal with it, there will just be some shell company in non EU they can export to and have it destroyed there... Though that will obviously incur a larger cost than today.
- sajithdilshan 3mo agoTransportation would be costly, but it could be that in whole it would be much cheaper than discarding them in let’s say in Germany. I can imagine the price to destroy 1kg of clothes in Serbia way less than in Germany
- b112 3mo agoWhat typically happens is that people buy up these clothes in massive auction/lots, then just sell them on Amazon. As Amazon joins all listings together, 100 sellers of the same item all have the same reviews/etc. So some slightly damaged shirt, or a shirt returned and such, ends up sold by these secondary sellers as new. This is part of why people destroy clothes upon return, so that secondary sellers can't buy their own returned product at $1, and sell it making more than the original seller would have. Not to mention, all returns I've been noticing, resold from Amazon, are heavily treated now with some sort of spray. I can only presume bedbugs were getting returned with used clothing...
- sajithdilshan 3mo agoI don’t think m that’s happening in EU. Most of the clothes I see on Amazon are the same as I find on Temu. Only the prices are higher on Amazon
- 3mo ago
- nullorempty 3mo agoThey should really follow up with a similar policy on food. At a nearby whole foods a large portion of produce goes to waste. It's heartbreaking to see.
- TiredOfLife 3mo ago1. There are no Whole Food in europe 2. Clothes don't go bad and poison people in general
- OptionOfT 3mo agoThis is already the case in France since I believe 2016. There's was uptick around this story 4 months ago, so I'm not sure if those were bots resurfacing it or whether something changed in the law.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- bananamogul 3mo ago"Companies may only destroy unsold clothes and shoes in limited cases, such as when items are unsafe or damaged, counterfeit or infringing intellectual property rights, or are rejected by charities or donation schemes." Nike's unsold, defective, or returned shoes are ground up to make carpet padding. They're processed by the truckload in a large grinding machine. It seems that under these rules, this would be illegal - ?
- jjice 3mo agoI guess it comes down to if that is considered recycling. I'd personally consider it such, but not sure what the legal definitions will be.
- LaundroMat 3mo agoIsn't that recycling instead of destroying?
- Wicher 3mo agoTurning shoes into carpet padding is probably "downcycling". I think recycling would mean most of the shoe would be used for new shoes or something of similar complexity, retaining the grade and value of the input materials. Downcycling is when you reuse something for a less refined purpose. For instance you can use contaminated plastics (im the sense of somewhat mixed types, bits and bobs of labels etc) to make humble park benches, but you won't be then reusing that low grade park bench plastic to make the Hubble space telescope with. Still, downcycling into carpet is better than dumping the shoes on a coral atoll of course. Yet it's a step below recycling.
- embedding-shape 3mo agoThere is a lot more information about it here: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy/ecodesign-sustainable-products-regulation_en https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy/e..., and the full (current) text being here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1781&qid=1719580391746 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A... As far as I can tell (although I'm no lawyer, sorry Nike), the point is to reduce waste and to increase recycled content in use. With these two main objectives, what Nike is doing seem to be fitting within that. It's not the "destruction" itself that is bad, but what you do with that after the destruction, recycling it doesn't create waste (or maybe, as much waste) as outright destroying+throwing all of it.
- radu_floricica 3mo ago> To prevent misuse, businesses relying on these exemptions must provide proof (e.g. documents or test results) and publish annual reports on what they have discarded. I wonder if anybody is keeping track of everything a mid size business needs to take care of. Each particular report probably sounds like a reasonable request, but by now they're probably well into hundreds, and they're all outside the actual scope of the business (e.g. it may seem manageable for the bureaucrats designing them, because that's what they deal with all day, but not for a small organization doing... something else).
- outime 3mo agoThe "regulation kills businesses" saying is often (not always) exactly right.
- dinfinity 3mo agoIs it? What is the proof for that? I think we've seen time and time again that self-regulation of the industry doesn't work and that businesses will gladly fuck over society if they can get away with it and make more money. Usually that behavior is even defended with saying "Well, it's not their responsibility to solve society's issues. They are there to make money." Barring nationalization of an industry, heavy regulation and/or taxation/subsidizing are the only ways to reliably protect the interests of society. If some businesses get killed in the process, so be it.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- cbmuser 3mo ago»If some businesses get killed in the process, so be it.« The problem with this attitude is that the rest of the world often doesn’t have these strict regulations and as result, businesses aren’t killed but just leaving the country.
- WalterBright 3mo agoWouldn't that drive textile manufacturing out of the EU?
- petcat 3mo agoI think that's the point. EU doesn't actually want these factories to operate in the EU. They just want to buy the clothes from elsewhere. But then of course they cry a lot when they realize how easy it has become for China and USA to squeeze them. Tough consequences of stuff like this.
- enaaem 3mo agoNo, this will give EU textile manufacturing an advantage, because they mostly produce low volume high value products. This will hurt fast fashion importers the most.
- Saline9515 3mo agoFast fashion importers such as Zara already do JIT delivery to the stores and very short series. They can adapt easily because they have the capital, but this will hurt smaller brands that can't.
- storus 3mo agoAfrica is going to be full of old Versaces, Balenciagas, Guccis and Valentinos.
- skybrian 3mo agoIt sounds like charities will be getting a lot of unsalable clothing to go through. Maybe they could charge businesses for taking it? It seems rather similar to what Ross Clothing does.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- altairprime 3mo agoThe EU is definitely studying the donations / tax-credit economy across its states; I expect that working group will be paying very close attention to donation outcomes union-wide in the coming months. Tax incentives for donations to social economy entities: Models, trends, and challenges (2025) https://social-economy-gateway.ec.europa.eu/document/download/31178fd6-01e0-4990-b5b5-9ec6a6819951_en?filename=Thematic_discussion_paper_WS3_0.pdf https://social-economy-gateway.ec.europa.eu/document/downloa...
- christkv 3mo agoThe problem with the EU is that it only approaches problem solving with regulation. It’s incapable of doing anything else. Meanwhile none of the Chinese platforms dumping cheap clothes and crap into the market are held to any of these standards for safety or destruction.
- cheeze 3mo agoThe EU can control companies that operate within the EU, they can't stop a Chinese company operating in China from destroying things. They could prevent the sale in EU without proof that the companies don't do that, but this is a good start. This also isn't targeting the waste that comes from temu. This is targeting luxury brands that create artificial scarcity and destroy items rather than sell them at a discount. Think Gucci, Louis Vuitton, etc.
- kwoff 3mo agoIn the 1800s recycled wool called "shoddy" was invented, or at least began being mass-produced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycled_wool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycled_wool "Rag and bone men" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rag-and-bone_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rag-and-bone_man would go around collecting scraps to sell to shoddy factories. Anyway, if you encounter any shoddy code... :) (I can't find a source, but I thought a similar thing happened in Shakespeare's time, except I remember it being children going around collecting old scraps of clothing. And in my head it's related to act 1 scene 1 of Hamlet, the famous quote: "But, look, the morn, in russet mantle clad". A mantle was a kind of cloak, and russet was the cloth it was made from which was originally reddish (though eventually "russet" was just this rough cloth of various colors). So I think maybe "shoddy" is a kind of evolution of "russet".)
- nerdyadventurer 3mo agoHope they do not dump it on Africa just like US and UK doing. - https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/jun/05/yvette-yaa-konadu-tetteh-how-ghana-became-fast-fashions-dumping-ground https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/jun/05/y... - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/18/discarded-clothes-from-uk-brands-dumped-in-protected-ghana-wetlands https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/18/discarded-clot... - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HTrOmJpJjg4 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HTrOmJpJjg4
- petre 3mo agoThat's exactly what they'll do. Establish charities to enable dumping the unsold clothong outside of the EU.
- mensetmanusman 3mo agoRegulatory arbitrage opportunity. Start a business that purchases clothes that would normally be discarded and convert them to vehicle insulation.
- petre 3mo agoWhat stops them from selling the clothing outside of the EU to get destroyed?