They quite clearly are. Burberry was caught a while ago 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.

>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'.

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.

> 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.

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.

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?

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

> 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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".

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.

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.

Not sure if sarcasm or cluelessness.