EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application
315 points
• 2 days ago
• Article
Link
自 2026 年 7 月 19 日起，European Union 对大型企业实施了一项里程碑式禁令，禁止销毁未售出的服装、鞋类及相关配件。该政策是 Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) 的核心内容，旨在推动 European 经济朝更循环、更高效利用资源的模式转型。中型企业将于 2030 年起被要求遵守同样标准。
该法规的主要目标是减少因丢弃仍可使用的消费品而造成的大量原材料、能源、水和劳动力浪费。通过强制企业优先让产品继续流通，EU 希望遏制销毁新商品所带来的大量温室气体排放。根据新规，企业需优先清理现有库存，例如通过打折渠道销售、向慈善机构捐赠，或通过翻新和再利用延长商品寿命。
尽管禁令覆盖面广，但也设有有限例外：仅当商品被认定为不安全、已损坏、为伪劣品或侵犯知识产权时，企业才可予以销毁；被捐赠或慈善项目正式拒收的物品也可能获豁免。为防止滥用，这些例外须以具体证据证明，如检测报告等，且企业需公布年度报告，详细说明被销毁的库存情况。
各国主管当局负责执法，有权对不合规企业处以罚款。公司须保存五年的完整记录以备检查。为简化行政负担，European Commission 已将这些报告要求与现有的海关和物流编码相衔接；值得注意的是，小型和微型企业不在这些具体报告义务之列。
此举回应了 European Environment Agency 的警示性数据：估计每年在到达消费者手中之前，Europe 有 26.4 万至 59.4 万吨纺织品被销毁。将纺织品作为首个纳入 ESPR 监管的产品类别，European Commission 正针对这一对环境危害极大的行业采取行动。相关法规是在与非政府组织、专家和行业利益相关方广泛磋商后最终敲定，力求在环境目标与商业实际之间取得平衡。
Beginning July 19, 2026, the European Union has implemented a landmark ban prohibiting large companies from destroying unsold clothing, footwear, and related accessories. This policy is a core component of the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, or ESPR, which was established to move the European economy toward a more circular and resource-efficient model. Medium-sized enterprises will be required to comply with these same standards starting in 2030.
The primary goal of this regulation is to curtail the massive waste of raw materials, energy, water, and human labor that occurs when functional consumer goods are discarded. By mandating that businesses prioritize keeping products in circulation, the EU aims to curb the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with the destruction of new items. Under the new rules, companies must focus on selling existing inventory, perhaps through discounted channels, donating items to charities, or finding ways to refurbish and repurpose the goods.
While the ban is broad, there are limited exceptions. Businesses are permitted to destroy items only if they are deemed unsafe, damaged, counterfeit, or if they infringe upon intellectual property rights. Additionally, items that are formally rejected by donation or charity programs may be exempted. To ensure these loopholes are not abused, companies relying on these exceptions must provide concrete documentation, such as test results, and are required to publish annual reports detailing their discarded inventory.
Enforcement of these new standards falls to national authorities, who have the power to impose financial penalties on non-compliant businesses. Companies are expected to maintain meticulous records for a period of five years to facilitate potential inspections. To simplify the administrative burden, the commission has integrated these reporting requirements with existing customs and logistics codes, and notably, small and micro-businesses are excluded from these specific reporting obligations.
This shift comes in response to sobering data from the European Environment Agency, which estimates that between 264,000 and 594,000 tonnes of textiles are destroyed annually in Europe before ever reaching a consumer. By making textiles the first product category subject to the ESPR, the European Commission is targeting one of the most environmentally damaging sectors. The regulations were finalized following extensive consultations with NGOs, experts, and industry stakeholders to balance environmental goals with practical business realities.
303 comments • Comments Link
• 制造商经常销毁滞销库存，因为与折扣出售、储存或重新分配相比，销毁在物流成本上更划算，同时还能防止品牌稀释和侵蚀新产品系列的定价。
• 快时尚依赖快速的产品周期；保留库存或以大幅折扣出售，可能会削弱当季商品的感知价值，并占用昂贵的货架或仓库空间。
• 中小型企业可能会因繁琐的报告要求而面临沉重的行政负担，这些要求往往难以顾及官僚体系之外组织的实际情况。
• 未售商品的销毁主要由商业策略驱动，尤其是为了维护奢侈品牌的声誉，或防止二级市场损害高利润的全价销售。
• 批评者认为，禁止销毁未售商品可能促使企业减产，从而导致某些罕见尺码更难买到，或将供应链转移至监管更宽松的国家。
• 一些行业，例如高端香水或设计师品牌时装，将销毁库存视为维持市场定位的必要成本：品牌贬值的风险被认为大于物质损失。
• 捐赠并非总是可行的替代方案，因为管理、储存和分发大量剩余物品的物流成本，往往高于直接处置，这还需要许多企业并不存在的专业基础设施。
• 针对工业废弃物的立法，例如 EU 的反浪费指令，旨在遏制系统性的过度生产并鼓励材料再利用，从对回收的盲目崇拜转向真正的重复使用与翻新。
• 如何在法律上定义"废弃物"和"回收"仍存在挑战，人们担心企业可能借助空壳实体或将剩余商品出口到环境保护较弱的地区来钻空子。
• 与食品浪费监管的比较显示，虽然授权监管可以减少部分外部性，但也可能带来次生经济影响，例如价格上涨或零售商调整库存风险管理方式的意想不到变化。
总体讨论反映出，抑制系统性工业废弃物的愿望与现代制造业经济现实之间存在深刻张力。尽管普遍认为大规模销毁全新且可用的产品在环境和社会层面问题严重，但对于监管是否为最优解，亦或只是把问题转移到漏洞、境外设施或减少市场供应上，各方意见并不一致。人们对强制企业捐赠商品的可行性仍持怀疑态度，因为物流成本和品牌保护仍是促成当前销毁做法的重要动力。最终，这场辩论凸显了市场"看不见的手"与日益增长的环境责任和社会可持续性要求之间的摩擦：在市场逻辑下，销毁库存往往被视为最具成本效益的选择。 • Manufacturers often destroy unsold inventory because disposal is cheaper than the logistics required to discount, store, or redistribute goods, while also preventing brand dilution and price cannibalization of newer product lines.
• Fast fashion relies on rapid product cycles; holding onto stock or selling it at deep discounts can interfere with the perceived value of current season offerings and consume expensive shelf or warehouse space.
• Small and mid-sized businesses may face a crushing administrative burden due to complex reporting requirements, which often fail to account for the realities of organizations outside the bureaucratic sphere.
• The destruction of unsold goods is primarily driven by business strategy, specifically the desire to maintain luxury brand prestige or ensure that secondary markets do not undermine high-margin, full-price sales.
• Critics argue that banning the destruction of unsold items may lead companies to under-produce, potentially causing shortages of less common product sizes or forcing supply chain shifts to countries with looser regulations.
• Some sectors, such as high-end perfume or designer fashion, treat inventory destruction as a necessary cost of maintaining market positioning, where the risk of brand devaluation outweighs the material loss.
• Donating goods is not always a viable alternative, as the logistics of managing, storing, and distributing large volumes of surplus items can exceed the costs of simple disposal, often requiring specialized infrastructure that does not exist at scale.
• Legislation targeting industrial waste, such as the EU's anti-waste directives, aims to curb systemic overproduction and incentivize the repurposing of materials, moving beyond "recycling fetishism" toward actual reuse and refurbishment.
• Challenges remain regarding how laws will define "waste" and "recycling," with concerns that companies may find loopholes through shell entities or by exporting surplus goods to regions with fewer environmental protections.
• Comparisons to food waste regulation suggest that while mandates can reduce some externalities, they may create secondary economic effects like price increases or unintended shifts in how retailers manage inventory risk.
The discussion reflects a deep tension between the desire to curb systemic industrial waste and the economic realities of modern manufacturing. While there is broad consensus that the massive destruction of new, usable products is environmentally and socially problematic, participants disagree on whether regulation is the most effective solution or if it merely shifts the problem to loopholes, offshore facilities, or reduced market availability. Skepticism remains regarding the feasibility of forcing companies to donate goods, as logistics and brand protection remain powerful incentives for current destructive practices. Ultimately, the debate highlights the friction between the "invisible hand" of market efficiency—where destroying inventory is often the most cost-effective path—and the growing societal demand for environmental accountability and long-term sustainability.