Large companies are not allowed to throw away unsold clothing in the EU

In some cases, disposal is considered more cost-effective than storing, processing, or reselling products.

However, exceptions apply, among other things, if the goods are hazardous, damaged, or contaminated, or cannot be reused or recycled. Goods that were offered as donations to several social economy organizations based in the EU but were not accepted within a specified time frame may also be destroyed. For smaller businesses, the new requirements will take effect at a later date.

Trade Association Sees Benefits for Consumers

According to the German Retail Association (HDE), the ban could bring benefits for consumers: According to CEO Stefan Genth, the supply of discounted merchandise could increase, for example through outlet stores, clearance sales, or secondhand channels. He also sees potential environmental benefits, “since fewer nearly-new clothes are destroyed and products are more often resold or donated.”

However, the retail sector faces challenges, says Genth: “Not all unsold merchandise can be easily resold or donated.” Reasons for this could include damaged packaging, high logistics costs, lack of demand, or low merchandise value. Retailers would incur additional costs for storage, sorting, processing, and resale. Added to this are documentation requirements, legal uncertainties, and practical hurdles when it comes to donations or secondhand sales.

Association: Less Impact on European

The fashion association GermanFashion supports the new regulation. “Clothing is a valuable product, and its destruction should be avoided,” said CEO Thomas Lange. The ban on destruction sends an important signal in favor of a more responsible use of resources.

For many European clothing companies, however, the regulation will have little impact because unsold merchandise is generally not destroyed. The real challenge, according to Lange, lies in the large quantities of inexpensive ultra-fast-fashion products that consumers order directly from non-European suppliers. He is calling for these companies to contribute to the costs of collecting, sorting, and recycling used textiles in the same way as European manufacturers do in the future.

The General Association of the German Textile and Fashion Industry criticizes the law, saying it is out of touch with reality, burdens the domestic industry with red tape, and does nothing to address the problems associated with fast fashion. Expert Jonas Stracke says that achieving greater sustainability requires, for example, effective collection, sorting, and recycling systems. As long as these conditions are lacking, the ban on destruction remains a paper tiger. “Unfortunately, in practice, it does not make a real contribution to the circular economy.”

Environmentalists are calling for inspections

Environmental organizations say the new regulations don’t go far enough. Moritz Jäger-Roschko of Greenpeace, for example, says the ban is a step in the right direction but sees loopholes that corporations can exploit. “Companies can easily circumvent the rules, for example by mislabeling products. Without consistent enforcement, nothing will change in practice.” The real problem—fast fashion—remains unaffected by the law.

From the WWF’s perspective, the ban on destruction is an important first step. However, a law is only as good as its enforcement, said Silke Düwel-Rieth of the environmental organization. “It will only be effective if the relevant authorities consistently monitor and enforce compliance with the regulations.”

According to data from the European Commission, four to nine percent of unsold textiles in Europe are destroyed each year before they are ever worn. This waste accounts for approximately 5.6 million metric tons of CO2 emissions.